1 CGHC010267622026 2026:CGHC:31185 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 900 of 2026 Rajkumar Sahu S/o Ramnath Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Koylari, Police Station And Tehsil Pipariya, District Kabirdham-Kawardha Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Mamta Sahu W/o Rajkumar Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Koylari, Police Station And Tehsil Pipariya, District Kabirdham Kawardha Chhattisgarh Present Address Ranbod, Tahsil And Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2. Chhatrapal S/o Rajkumar Sahu Aged About 5 Years R/o Koylari, Police Station And Tehsil Pipariya, District Kabirdham-Kawardha, Chhattisgarh Through Natural Guardian respondent No. 1 Smt. Mamta Sahu, Present Address Ranbod, Tahsil And Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Poulami Das, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2026 1. Heard Ms. Poulami Das, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify and set aside the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.23 15:04:23 +0530 2 impugned order dated 08.04.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, C.G. in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 321/2024 to the extent that the interim maintenance be made payable from the date of the order instead of the date of the application and further be pleased to pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the ends of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that That, the responents instituted proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance in favour of respondent No. 1 (wife) and respondent No. 2 (minor son). In the year 2018, the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Village Ranbod, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Out of the said wedlock, a son, namely respondent No. 2, was born on 27.08.2019. Subsequently, certain matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, owing to which respondent No. 1 started residing separately from the applicant. In the application filed under Section 144 of the BNSS, respondent No. 1 alleged, inter alia, that after the marriage she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands, that the applicant and his family members physically and mentally harassed her, attempted to malign her character, neglected her during her pregnancy, and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home without making any arrangement for her maintenance. It was further alleged that the applicant owns approximately 12 acres of agricultural land, operates a tractor, earns substantial income from agriculture along with additional monthly income, and, on the said basis, respondent No. 1 claimed interim maintenance of 3 Rs. 12,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 8,000/- per month for respondent No. 2 (minor son). 4. The applicant entered appearance before the learned Family Court and filed a detailed reply specifically denying each and every allegation made in the application. The applicant categorically pleaded that neither he nor any of his family members had ever demanded dowry or subjected respondent No. 1 to any cruelty or harassment. It was further pleaded that the applicant had always been willing and ready to keep the respondents in the matrimonial home with dignity and respect, and that it was respondent No. 1 who had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and thereafter refused to return despite repeated efforts made by the applicant. The Applicant also denied the allegations regarding his financial capacity and specifically disputed the income attributed to him by respondent No. 1. It was pleaded that the assertions regarding his ownership of agricultural land and his annual income were grossly exaggerated and incorrect. The applicant further submitted that respondent No. 1 belongs to a financially well-established family and continues to receive financial support from her parents. 5. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court observed that the relationship of husband and wife between the applicant and respondent No. 1, as well as the paternity of respondent No. 2 (minor son), were undisputed. The learned Family Court further took note of the fact that respondent No. 1 and the minor son were residing separately from the applicant. Consequently, vide the impugned order dated 08.04.2026, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application for interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 500/- per month to respondent No. 2 (minor son). However, the learned Family Court further 4 directed that the said interim maintenance shall be payable from the date of institution of the application instead of from the date of the order. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court committed a grave error in directing that the interim maintenance be paid from the date of institution of the application instead of from the date of the impugned order. She submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the plain and unambiguous language of Section 144(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides as :“Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding.” A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that the normal rule is that maintenance or interim maintenance is payable from the date of the order, and only in appropriate cases, for reasons to be recorded, may it be directed to be payable from the date of the application. Thus, the learned Family Court erred in directing payment from the date of the application without assigning any cogent or special reasons. She also submits that the the direction to pay interim maintenance from the date of the application appears to have been passed mechanically and without due application of mind. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had duly complied with the earlier maintenance order directing payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month throughout the pendency of the proceedings. Imposing a retrospective financial liability, in the absence of any established neglect, wilful default, or delay attributable to the applicant, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. She further submits that the it is a well-settled principle of law that the ordinary rule is that maintenance or interim maintenance is payable from the date of the 5 order. Any departure from this settled principle must be supported by a reasoned and speaking order assigning special reasons for directing payment from the date of the application. The impugned order is completely silent in this regard and, therefore, suffers from non- application of mind. She submits that judicial orders are required to adhere to the principles of fairness, certainty, and reasonableness. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is already under a legal and moral obligation to maintain his aged parents, his second wife, and his minor daughter. The direction to pay maintenance retrospectively from the date of the application imposes an undue and onerous financial burden upon the Applicant, thereby disturbing the balance of equity and causing grave prejudice. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that interim maintenance is intended to be a temporary and provisional arrangement pending adjudication of the main proceedings. By directing payment from the date of the application without recording any exceptional or special reasons, the learned Family Court acted contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of interim maintenance, thereby rendering the impugned direction legally unsustainable. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the learned Family Court has committed no illegality in directing payment of interim maintenance from the date of the application. Section 144(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 expressly empowers the Court to grant interim maintenance either from the date of the order or from the date of the 6 application. In the present case, the learned Family Court has exercised its discretion in accordance with law to ensure that the respondents are not deprived of financial support during the pendency of the proceedings. Accordingly, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 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