1 2026:CGHC:26870 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 805 of 2026 Kishor Aditya S/o Dhruv Aditya Aged About 40 Years Caste- Aditya, R/o Village Fuljhariya Para, Post And Tehsil- Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Gangotri Aditya W/o Kishor Aditya Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Fuljhariya Para, Post And Tehsil- Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh, At Present- R/o Kharaud, Tahsil- Pamgarh, Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in CAN No. 187/2026, Case No. 423/2025, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant is legally wedded husband of the respondent, whose marriage has been solemnized on in the year 2018 as per religious rites and ritual sat village kharoud. On 01.07.2025, the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 respondent filed an application under Section 144 BNS seeking grant of and on the maintenance from the respondent, same date, the respondent also filed a separate application seeking interim maintenance to be paid by the applicant during the pendency of the proceedings. 4. The respondent has averred and alleged in here aforesaid application that, the applicant and his parents subjected her to mental and physical harassment on account of demand of dowry and that the applicant used to assault her after consuming alcohol. It has further been alleged that in the year 2022, the applicant and his family members sent her to her parental home, whereafter she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the applicant. It is further alleged by the respondent/Wife that during pendency of the said proceedings, the applicant/Husband instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court at Sarangarh, which was registered as Civil Suit No. A/22/2022, wherein an order dated 26.04.2023 was passed for restitution of marital rights and for residing together. According to the respondent, pursuant to settlement between the parties, she resumed cohabitation with the Applicant in July, 2024 and started residing at her matrimonial home. However, respondent has further alleged that thereafter the Applicant again started harassing her and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial house in March, 2025, due to which she has been residing at her parental home since then. The respondent has further alleged that after she was allegedly turned out from the matrimonial home and the applicant neither made 3 any effort to bring her back. It has been averred that she is a less educated housewife having no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the respondent has sought interim maintenance of 5,000/- per month from the applicant. 5. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court after perusal of the documents passed the impugned order, and has allowed the application filed by the respondent for grant of interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the allegations made by the respondent are self-contradictory and materially inconsistent. In her statement dated 13.10.2023 recorded in the earlier proceedings under Section 144 BNSS, the respondent had stated that initially after marriage the applicant treated her well for a few days and thereafter, upon provocation by his family members, he allegedly started harassing and assaulting her. However, in the present application dated 01.07.2025, the respondent has made an entirely different allegation by stating that since the very beginning of the marriage, the applicant had been assaulting her under the influence of alcohol for unreasonable reasons. The learned Family Court has failed to consider the material contradictions in the versions of the respondent, which render her allegations unreliable and doubtful. 4 Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar