1 2026:CGHC:25178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 737 of 2026 Smt. Sangeeta Sahu W/o Deepak Sahu, D/o Dasru Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bharari, Post - Joki, P.S. Sakri, Tahsil Sakri District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Joki, P.S. Sakri, Tahsil Sakri District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Shri Deepak Sahu Father Shri Chaitram Sahu Aged About 34 Years Village P.O. Bharari, Police Station Koni, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19 /06/2026 1. Heard Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the applicant. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal M.J.C. No.413/2025, whereby the learned Family Court rejected the interim maintenance application filed by the applicant/wife under Section 144 of BNSS. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision are that the marriage between the applicant/revisionist and the respondent was solemnized on 10.06.2015 according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the applicant resided at her matrimonial home for some time. It is alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the respondent and his family members, due to which she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents. The applicant contends that she has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. According to her, the respondent and his family possess agricultural land and have sufficient means to provide maintenance. When her parents became unable to support her financially, she filed an application seeking maintenance along with an application for interim maintenance before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur. The respondent opposed the application, contending that the applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and further asserting that he is suffering from mental illness and is unable to maintain himself. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family 3 Court, Bilaspur, vide order dated 10.04.2026, rejected the application for interim maintenance primarily on the ground that the applicant had been residing separately since the year 2015 and had approached the Court after a delay of about ten years, thereby indicating absence of any immediate financial hardship. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. The application for interim maintenance has been rejected solely on the ground of delay in approaching the Court, whereas delay by itself cannot be a valid ground to deny maintenance when the wife is unable to maintain herself. He further submits that the learned Family Court further failed to consider that the applicant was compelled to reside at her parental home due to the cruelty and harassment allegedly inflicted upon her by the non-applicant and his family members. The Court also overlooked the settled principle that interim maintenance is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the wife during the pendency of proceedings so as to enable her to maintain herself with dignity and effectively prosecute the case. He also submits that the learned Family Court did not properly assess the income, agricultural holdings and overall financial capacity of the non-applicant, despite material on 4 record indicating sufficient means to maintain the applicant. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 is contrary to the settled principles governing grant of maintenance and is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rejected the interim maintenance application filed by the applicant/wife under Section 144 of BNSS, holding that the applicant had been residing separately from the respondent since shortly after the marriage solemnized in the year 2015 and had approached the Court for maintenance only in the year 2025. The learned Family Court further observed that the respondent was undergoing treatment for mental illness and that the question whether he was capable of earning income was a matter of evidence to be decided during trial. On these considerations, the Court concluded that no immediate or pressing financial hardship was established by the applicant warranting grant of interim maintenance and consequently rejected the application. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 9. 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 of CrPC, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil