1 2026:CGHC:24343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 675 of 2026 Utkrisht Singh S/o Late Omprakesh Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o - C35, C.M.P.D.I. Colony Seepat Road Sarkanda Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Vandana Singh W/o Utkrisht Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o S/o Gulab Singh Lean No. 2, Bramha Nagar Colony Robatsganj Infront of Masjid District- Sonbadra (U.P.) … Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present revision petition and kindly be pleased to Set aside/quash the impugned order dated 28.03.2026 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in H.M. Case No. 751 of 2023in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was solemnized on 22.04.2022 at Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, in accordance with Hindu rites and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 customs, whereafter the non-applicant started residing at the matrimonial home of the applicant. According to the applicant, soon after the marriage, disputes and differences arose between the parties as the non-applicant allegedly avoided establishing matrimonial relations and frequently stayed at her parental home. The parties cohabited only for a brief period from 25.04.2022 to 15.08.2022 and no child was born out of the said wedlock. Despite repeated efforts made by the applicant to restore matrimonial harmony and bring the non-applicant back to the matrimonial home, no positive response was received from her or her family members. Consequently, the applicant instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, which was registered as Case No. 31/2022. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 06.07.2023, directed the applicant to visit the parental residence of the non-applicant for reconciliation, however, despite compliance with the said direction, the applicant was informed that the non-applicant was not residing there and subsequently she allegedly conveyed her unwillingness to continue the matrimonial relationship. Thereafter, the applicant filed a petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, on 13.09.2023. Subsequently, the non-applicant instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge, Family 3 Court, Sonbhadra (U.P.), registered as Misc. Case No. 62 of 2024, wherein vide order dated 14.10.2025, the applicant was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the non-applicant. Thereafter, during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the non-applicant also preferred an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in H.M. Case No. 751 of 2023, which was partly allowed by the learned Family Court vide the impugned order dated 28.03.2026, directing the applicant to pay Rs.2,500/- on each date of hearing towards travelling and food expenses till disposal of the case along with litigation expenses of Rs.12,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles governing Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is already receiving maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month pursuant to the order dated 14.10.2025 passed in Misc. Case No. 62/2024 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra (U.P.), and despite the same, an additional financial burden has been imposed upon the applicant without proper consideration of his income, liabilities, and financial capacity. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court mechanically awarded Rs.2,500/- on each date of hearing towards travel and food expenses, along with litigation expenses of Rs.12,000/-, without recording cogent 4 reasons or there being sufficient material on record to justify such award. He further submits that no child has been born out of the wedlock and the parties have been residing separately since August, 2022, which fact ought to have been considered while determining the financial obligations of the applicant. It is also contended that the applicant had made sincere efforts to restore matrimonial life, including instituting proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but the same could not succeed due to the unwillingness of the non-applicant to resume cohabitation. It is further argued that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the non-applicant is capable of maintaining herself and is already availing maintenance under an order passed by a competent Court. Thus, the impugned order is stated to suffer from non-application of mind and deserves to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, has rightly allowed the application preferred by the non-applicant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The learned Family Court has taken into consideration that matrimonial disputes are pending between the parties and that the non-applicant is required to attend the proceedings before the Court and incur expenses towards travel, food and litigation for effectively contesting the case. Merely because the non-applicant has been granted maintenance of 5 Rs.10,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would not disentitle her from seeking litigation and incidental expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as the object of maintenance is distinct from the purpose of providing adequate means to prosecute or defend matrimonial proceedings. The amount of Rs.2,500/- per date of hearing towards travelling and food expenses and Rs.12,000/- towards litigation expenses has been awarded by the learned Family Court after considering the attending facts and circumstances of the case and the necessity of enabling the non- applicant to effectively participate in the proceedings. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference and appears to be a just, reasonable and well-considered exercise of discretion by the learned Family Court. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan