1 2026:CGHC:27414 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 821 of 2026 Ravi Aagvane Son Of Ramesh Aagvane, Aged About 32 Years Resident Of 469, Sector-C Near Shiv Mandir, Prajapat Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Alka Aagvane Wife Of Ravi Aagvane Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village Cristian Colony, Shyamnagar Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Samridhi Aagvane, Daughter Of Ravi Aagvane, Aged About 3 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Alka Aagvane, Resident Of Village Cristian Colony, Shyamnagar Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03 /07/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the learned Third Additional Principle Judge, Family Court Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.1426/2024, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs. 10,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 5000/- per month to the non-applicant KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 No.2 (minor) as interim maintenance in the application under Section 144 of BNSS. 2. Brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the non-applicants instituted an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance along with an application for grant of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month against the applicant before the learned Family Court concerned. It is pleaded that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 was solemnized on 27.11.2020 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and after the marriage, non-applicant No.1 started residing with the applicant at her matrimonial home. Out of the said wedlock, non-applicant No.2 was born. It is further alleged by non-applicant No.1 that after some time of the marriage, the applicant and his family members started subjecting her to cruelty and harassment on account of demand for dowry, abused her in filthy language, assaulted her and unlawfully demanded a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-. Owing to the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment, non-applicant No.1 left the matrimonial home and started residing along with non-applicant No.2 at her parental house. It is further averred that non-applicant No.1 has no independent source of income for her livelihood, whereas the applicant is employed in the banking sector, earns approximately Rs.80,000/- per month, and is also possessed of agricultural land, and therefore, the non-applicants claimed interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month before the learned Family Court. 3. Upon issuance of notice, the applicant entered appearance and filed his reply denying all the allegations made in the application, contending that non-applicant No.1, without any justifiable reason, 3 quarrelled with the applicant and voluntarily left the matrimonial home. Therefore, he prayed for rejection of application. 4. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, vide order dated 02.05.2026, the learned Family Court concerned granted interim maintenance in favour of non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay ₹10,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1 and ₹5,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 2/minor, totaling ₹15,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of application till final disposal of the case. Hence, the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts, evidence and material available on record. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant never subjected non-applicant No.1 to cruelty or harassment and on the contrary, always made sincere efforts to maintain the matrimonial relationship, whereas non-applicant No.1, without any sufficient or justifiable cause, voluntarily left the matrimonial home and has been residing separately of her own accord. It is further submitted that non-applicant No.1 was in the habit of picking up quarrels with the applicant and his family members and had also threatened to implicate them in false criminal cases, on account of which the applicant was constrained to submit a written complaint dated 31.07.2023 before the competent authority. It is argued that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is solely responsible for maintaining his aged mother and other dependent family members and is under severe financial constraints. It is further contended that the non-applicants failed to 4 produce any cogent material to establish the actual income of the applicant, yet the learned Family Court, without proper appreciation of the evidence, awarded interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month merely on assumptions and presumptions. It is also submitted that prior to filing the application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S., non- applicant No.1 had never made any complaint alleging demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment against the applicant before any authority or even her relatives, which renders the allegations doubtful. According to the applicant, non-applicant No.1 is capable of maintaining herself and has deliberately chosen to reside separately without any sufficient reason, and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. It is lastly submitted that the quantum of interim maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is excessive and disproportionate to the financial capacity of the applicant, having been fixed without any reliable evidence regarding his income and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside or suitably modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has duly considered the pleadings and material placed on record and passed a well-reasoned order granting interim maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 5000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2/minor, totaling Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of filing of application, holding the same to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering these circumstances, the Court held that the non- 5 applicants are entitled to receive interim maintenance as aforementioned until final disposal of the case, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 8. 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 concerned has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 10. 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. 11. 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