1 2026:CGHC:11058 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 321 of 2026 Smt. Ranee Gosai W/o Shri Damodar Gosai @ Sonu Gosai Aged About 22 Years Original R/o Bajrang Tekri, Post Tata Nagar, Police Station And Tahsil Bagbeda, District Singhbhum (Jharkhand), Presently Resided At- Ward No. 02, Tulsi Nagar, Korba, Tah And District Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Damodar Gosai @ Sonu Gosai S/o Shri Gurusharan Gosai Aged About 27 Years R/o Qtr No. 2641, Ward No. 07, Sai Mandir Radha Swami, Tifra, Post Bilaspur, Industrial Estate, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) Commercial Address Gosai Daily Needs And Paan Center, New Bus Stand, Vegetable Market, Tifra, Bhairav Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been ?led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.03.03 18:18:07 +0530 2 Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2026, (ANNEXURE A/1), passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Case No. 20/2025 "Smt. Ranee Gosai Vs. Damodar Gosai @ Sonu Gosai", in the interest of justice” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant (Ranee Gosai) and the respondent (Damodar Gosai @ Sonu Gosai) was solemnized on 11.07.2024 at Sanah Lal, New Bus Stand, Tifra, Bilaspur, in accordance with Hindu rites and traditions. After the marriage, the applicant started residing with the respondent along with his family members. After some time, the respondent and his family members started mentally harassing the applicant on account of insuCcient dowry and also committed marpeet (physical assault) upon her after consuming liquor. The family members of the applicant visited her matrimonial home to normalize the situation and tried to resolve the dispute. Due to the continuous torture inEicted by the respondent, the health condition of the applicant deteriorated day by day. Aggrieved by the acts of the respondent No. 1 and his family members, the applicant ?led an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of maintenance, along with an application under Section 144(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of interim maintenance from the Respondent. 4. The respondent submitted before the learned Family Court that the applicant, prior to her marriage with him, was living with another man, which fact was not disclosed before the solemnization of marriage, hence, he is not liable to pay any maintenance. 3 5. The learned trial court, on the basis of the alleged mutual agreement dated 09.09.2024 executed between the husband and wife, rejected the application under Section 144(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of interim maintenance vide impugned order dated 09.02.2026. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that she had lodged a First Information Report against him on account of harassment caused due to his demand for dowry. Therefore, the rejection of the application for grant of interim maintenance, without properly appreciating the material available on record, is illegal and unsustainable in law. He further submits that it is necessary to mention that, insofar as the alleged mutual consent/agreement regarding residing separately is concerned, the same is a matter of evidence and could not have been considered at the stage of deciding the application for interim (temporary) maintenance. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering the documents and material placed on record by the parties, dismissed the application ?led by the applicant under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking interim maintenance. The learned Family Court observed that, as per the deed of mutual consent for living separately dated 09.09.2024 available on record, it is stated that prior to her marriage with the respondent, the applicant was already married to another person. It is further observed that the respondent has ?led a 4 petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 06.03.2025. The report of the Family Counseling Centre, Korba, indicates that the conciliation proceedings between the parties have failed. It is also on record that the applicant lodged a First Information Report dated 01.02.2025 against the respondent alleging dowry harassment. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the ?nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in?rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash / modify the impugned order is refused. 11. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek