Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
CGHC010254872026
2026:CGHC:28871
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 856 of 2026 Heera Anchal S/o Kirtan Anchal Aged About 26 Years Caste - Satnami Resident of Village - Bicharpur Police Station - Fasterpur - Setganga Tahsil And District - Mungeli (C.G.)
... Applicant versus Smt. Manisha Dhritlahre W/o Heera Anchal Aged About 25 Years Caste - Satnami Resident of Village- Bicharpur Police Station- Fasterpur Setganga Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) At Present Resident of Village - Kathautiya Police Station - Chilphi Police Chowki- Dindouri Tahsil- Lormi District - Mungeli (C.G.)
... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Resham Lal Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri
Ramesh Sinha
, Chief Justice
Order on Board 10.07.2026
1. Heard Mr. Resham Lal Jaiswal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant.
2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:
“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned
order dated 12.05.2026, in the interest of justice.” ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.13 11:47:22 +0530
2
3.
Facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance and, on 19.05.2024, also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance. It was alleged therein that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, she went to the matrimonial home to perform her matrimonial obligations, however, after some time, she was allegedly subjected to cruelty by the applicant on account of demand of dowry and was ultimately ousted from the matrimonial home. Consequently, she has been residing at her parental house. It was further contended by the respondent that she has completed her M.A. degree and presently has no source of income, therefore, she filed the application seeking maintenance.
4. After service of notice, the applicant filed his reply to the aforesaid application, specifically denying that he had ever subjected the respondent to cruelty on account of any demand for dowry. It was further contended that the applicant is less educated, having studied only up to Class 5, whereas the respondent holds an M.A. degree, and for that reason she is unwilling to reside with him. The applicant submitted that he has always been ready and willing to keep the respondent with him and to perform his matrimonial obligations. It was further submitted that the applicant has already filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court, Mungeli, bearing Civil Suit No. 68-A/2025, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It was also submitted that, pursuant to a complaint lodged by the respondent before the police, counselling proceedings were conducted, during which the applicant unequivocally expressed his willingness to keep the respondent with him, however, the respondent refused to resume
3 cohabitation, resulting in the failure of the counselling proceedings. Since the respondent herself left the matrimonial home and has been residing separately without any reasonable cause, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant.
5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 12.05.2026, allowed the application for interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent.
6.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is completely illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. He submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is a less educated person, having studied only up to Class 5, whereas the respondent holds an M.A. degree. It is for this reason that she is unwilling to reside with the applicant. He also submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has never subjected the respondent to cruelty on account of any demand for dowry. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has always been ready and willing to keep the respondent with him and to perform his matrimonial obligations. He submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has already filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court, Mungeli, bearing Civil Suit No. 68-A/2025, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. He submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that, pursuant to the complaint lodged by the respondent before the police, counselling proceedings were conducted, during which the applicant unequivocally expressed his willingness to keep the
4 respondent with him. However, the respondent was not ready and willing to reside with the applicant, as a result of which the counselling proceedings failed. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent herself left the matrimonial home and has been residing separately without any reasonable cause. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash / modify 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 the BNSS, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek