1 2026:CGHC:22421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 576 of 2026 Rambadan S/o Late Hirauram Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No 26, Paraspani Bartunga Chirmiri Police Station And Tahsil- Khadganwa District- Manendragarh Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Bifaiya D/o Late Hirauram Aged About 50 Years Caste - Yadav R/o Ward No.26 Paraspani Bartuna Chirmiri Police Station And Tahsil Khadganwa District- Manendragarh Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Vasudha Shandilya, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.05.14 11:28:18 +0530 2 Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) in MJC No. 252/2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of monthly maintenance amount has been disposed of on the ground of compromise between the parties and awarding Rs. 4000/- per month as maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was kept in dark by the respondent and obtained her signature for the settlement deed and by producing the said settlement deed an amount of Rs. 4000/- was ordered to be paid as maintenance to the petitioner whereas the petitioner has not given any consent for Rs. 4000/-. The respondent is having sufficient income of more than Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and the petitioner would not have consented on such a meager amount, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the learned Family Court may be directed to decide the case on its merits. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the order dated 14.01.2026, it transpires that the said order has been passed on the basis of compromise between the parties and it has also been mentioned that the learned Family Court after having sufficient enquiry from the petitioner as well as the respondent passed the order. The relevant part of the order dated 14.01.2026 is as under :- "आवेदिका सहित मो० शमोश न्यायामिमो्ቔ उपቝኌत । 3 अनावेका स्वेत उपቝኌत । ्ቚकारण उपቝኌहित / स!ल त! हिनायात #।। इस% स्तर पर न्यायालया ቛኋर मो'खि)का चच+ कारना पर उभयाप्ቌ का मोध्या स!ल का/ स0भवेनाओं का दृदि3गत र)त हुए ्ቚकारण स!ल त! स!लकात+ का स7प गया। स!लकात+ ቛኋर ्ቚप्त ्ቚहितवेना का अना!सर अनावेका ्ቚहितमो आवेदिका का भरण- पषण का/ रशिश 4,000 / रूपया, अ0काना)-चर जार रूपया अ कारना चत #। आवेदिका भ% अनावेका का इस ्ቚस्तवे स समोत #। ्ቚहितवेना ्ቚकारण का सथ स0लग्ना हिकाया गया। न्यायालया ቛኋर उभयाप्ቌ स प?छे जाना पर उभयाप्ቌ ना उक्त रजा%नामो हिBना हिकास% डर, वेवे वे स्वेስኋ प?वे+का हिकाया जाना Bतलया तथ ्ቚकारण का उभयाप्ቌ का मोध्या हुए रजा%नामो का आधार पर समोप्त हिकाया जाना का हिनावेना हिकाया। इस स0B0धा मोF आवेदिका स आश पहि्ቔका पर 3Gप अ0हिकात कारया जाकार स्त्ቌर आवेदिका का न्यायामिमो्ቔ का समो्ቌ शिलया गया। अत उभयाप्ቌ का मोध्या हुए आपस% रजा%नामो का आधार पर अनावेका का हिनाHशिशत हिकाया जात # हिका वे आवेदिका का ्ቚहितमो जानावेर% 2026 स भरण-पषण का/ रशिश 4,000 / रूपया आवेदिका का Bचत )त मोF अ कारग। आवेदिका का हिनाHशिशत हिकाया गया हिका वे अपना Bचत )त का/ छेया ्ቚहित अनावेका का उपल्ቓ कारवे। उपरक्तना!सर उभयाप्ቌ का मोध्या रजा%नामो  जाना स आवेदिका ቛኋर पश या आवेना प्ቔ अ0तगत+ धार 144 भ०न्या०स!०स0हित समोप्त हिकाया जात #। ्ቚकारण का परिरणमो जा+ कार ्ቚकारण हिनायात अवेमिधा मोF अभिभल)गर ्ቚहिषत हिकाया जावे। 6. When the petitioner herself gave her consent on the amount of Rs. 4000/- per month as maintenance, now she can not resile from her consent given by her before the learned Family Court. From perusal of the order impugned, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit