1 CGHC010241232026 2026:CGHC:28017 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 823 of 2026 Dushyant Lodhi S/o Netram Lodhi Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Daniya, P.S. Bori, P.S. And Tahsil - Bori, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Reena @ Falguni Patel W/o Dushyant Lodhi Aged About 35 Years R/o Through Father Doctor Verma, Village Bodh (Renga), P.S. And Tahsil Saja, Distt. Bemetara Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 30.05.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 170/2025, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the objection of maintainability of the application under Domestic Violence Act. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of the applicant was taken place on 30.04.2003 as per Hindu Rites in Village Bond, Tahsil and Police Station Saja, District – Bemetara (C.G.). In the year 2013, the respondent has left the house of the applicant for treatment but contending ground fact an application for maintenance earlier and also it is alleged that the applicant had committed cruelty by doing marpit RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 and drove out the non-applicant from his house. The fact that Rs.4,000/- maintenance was granted by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. Though in order dated 30.05.2026, it is written that there is not order filed by the applicant in this case, therefore, the Court cannot see what was ordered and scrutiny of that could be done, and the applications under Domestic Violence Act and Section 144 of BNSS is maintainable. Hence, this revision. 4. 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 maintainability ought to have been decided by the Family Court by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the applicant as mentioned in the order sheet dated 30.05.2026 itself. It is further submitted that the applicant has not drove out of respondent, but in fact the respondent has gone away with her family members from the house of the applicant by taking all her ornaments etc. which her stree-dhan, therefore, due to leaving house of the applicant without any sufficient cause, no maintenance can be granted to the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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 the learned Family Court while 3 passing the impugned order has held that the remedies available under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 144 of the BNSS are independent and operate in distinct legal spheres with different objectives, the Court further observed that a woman is legally entitled to seek relief under both provisions, and that the existence of an earlier maintenance order does not bar the institution or continuation of proceedings under the other statute. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the applicant was held to be devoid of merit and was rejected by the Family Court, and there is no any illegality and infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 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 concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar