1 2026:CGHC:26576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 783 of 2026 Smt. Rashmi Shrivas W/o Laxmikant Shrivas Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bundela, Police Station Shivrinarayan Tahsil Pamgarh, Distt- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Present R/o C/o Toshram Shrivas (Father) Village Bokrel Police Station And Tahsil Balouda District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Laxmikant Shrivas S/o Shri Nokhram Shrivas Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bundela, Police Station Shivrinarayan Tahsil Pamgarh District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 498/2025, whereby the learned Family Court has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the applicant under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. from the date of filing of the application. Earlier, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 in M.J.C. No. 256/2024, the applicant was granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month vide order dated 03.05.2025, however, on account of a compromise arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat on 13.09.2025, the said proceedings were disposed of. Subsequently, as the parties could not resume cohabitation, the applicant filed a fresh application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S., which was registered as M.J.C. No. 498/2025. 2. Brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that it is an admitted fact that the applicant and the non-applicant are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 11.06.2023 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Village Bokrel, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). After a few days of marriage, the non-applicant/husband and his family members started harassing and subjecting the applicant to cruelty on the pretext of bringing insufficient dowry. The applicant tolerated such harassment and cruelty in the hope that their behaviour would improve with the passage of time. During the festival of "Navratri", on 18.10.2023, the applicant came to her parental home. After the festival, when the applicant requested the non-applicant to take her back to her matrimonial home, the non-applicant refused and stated that he would not keep the applicant with him. He further told her that if she wished to return, she should come along with 4-5 members of the community. Accordingly, the applicant, accompanied by her parents and other respectable members of society, went to the matrimonial home, but the non-applicant and his family members refused to keep her, levelled false allegations 3 against her and drove her out of the house. Since then, the applicant has been residing at her parental home. Thereafter, on 10.05.2024, the applicant submitted an application before the "Parivar Paramarsh Kendra", Janjgir. Although the non-applicant appeared on the first date of counselling, he failed to appear on the subsequent dates. Consequently, Crime No. 306/2024 was registered against the non-applicant and his family members for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC. Being the husband, the non-applicant is under a legal as well as moral obligation to maintain the applicant/wife, however, he has failed to make any arrangement for her maintenance, thereby exposing her to financial hardship and starvation. It is submitted that the non- applicant is a graduate in Software Engineering and is working as an Accountant in the Human Resource Development Department, earning a monthly salary of approximately ₹50,000/-. The father of the non-applicant retired from SECL in the year 2018 and had received retirement benefits amounting to approximately ₹50,00,000/- and is also receiving a monthly pension of ₹12,000/-. The brother of the non-applicant is working as an M.R. and earns about ₹50,000/- per month. The sister-in-law of the non-applicant is employed as a Hostel Superintendent at Pendra and is also earning a salary of approximately ₹50,000/- per month. Further, the non- applicant owns about 20 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns approximately ₹10,00,000/- annually. 3. Earlier, the applicant had filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S., which was registered as M.J.C. No. 256/2024, 4 wherein the learned Court, vide order dated 03.05.2025, awarded interim maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month to the applicant. It is further submitted that the non-applicant expressed his willingness to amicably settle the matter and assured that he was ready to keep the applicant with him. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat on 13.09.2025, and on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the said M.J.C. was disposed of. After a few days, the non-applicant once again sent the applicant back to her parental home and thereafter refused to take her back or keep her with him. Consequently, the applicant filed a fresh application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. along with an application seeking grant of interim maintenance. The said application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. has been registered as M.J.C. No. 498/2025. 4. Upon issuance of notice, the non-applicant appeared and filed his reply before the Family Court, raising objections and denying all the averments made in the application, including the claim for interim maintenance. 5. On 11.05.2026, the learned Family Court concerned heard the arguments advanced by both the parties on the application for grant of interim maintenance and awarded maintenance amount of ₹1,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the applicant till the final disposal of the application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 5 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed an error in awarding only Rs.1,000/- per month as interim maintenance, which is wholly inadequate and insufficient to enable the applicant to maintain herself in view of the prevailing cost of living. It is further submitted that the applicant has no independent source of income, whereas the non-applicant is sufficiently earning and financially well placed. He further contends that, on an earlier occasion, the learned Family Court, after considering the income and financial status of the non-applicant, had granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant vide order dated 03.05.2025 passed in M.J.C. No.256/2024 and, therefore, there was no justification for awarding a lesser amount in the subsequent proceedings. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant was compelled to reside separately as she had been ousted from the matrimonial home and the non-applicant made no sincere efforts to resume cohabitation. Accordingly, he prays for enhancement of the interim maintenance amount. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has duly considered the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record and has passed a well-reasoned order granting interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the applicant, holding the same to be just and proper in the facts and 6 circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the relevant factors, has held that the applicant is entitled to interim maintenance at the aforesaid rate till the final disposal of the proceedings. In the opinion of this Court, the amount so awarded at the interim stage cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable. 9. 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash 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 144 of BNSS, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 12. 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 Kunal