1 CGHC010288412026 2026:CGHC:32578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 965 of 2026 Gopal Gopwani S/o Ramesh Gopwani Aged About 43 Years R/o Qtr. No. 6, Sadak - 8, Behind Water Tank, Sector- 2, Bhilai, Distt- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Pooja Gopwani W/o Gopal Gopwani D/o Ashok Kumar Chhuttani Aged About 41 Years R/o Qtr. No. 6, Sadak - 8, Behind Water Tank, Sector- 2, Bhilai, Distt- Durg (C.G.) Present Address E W S- 95 Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Distt- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Divyana Gopwani D/o Jubin Hansrajani Aged About 11 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother (Respondent No. 1), R/o Qtr. No. 6, Sadak - 8, Behind Water Tank, Sector- 2, Bhilai, Distt- Durg (C.G.) Present Address E W S- 95 Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Distt- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2026 1. This criminal 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 allow this revision by setting aside the order dated 29.06.2026 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 (Annexure E) granting Rs. 15000/- per month by remitting it back to decide the case of declaration (civil suit), whether Respondent No. 1 is wife or not? first and if the answer is "yes", then only maintenance case be considered and decided or in alternative the interim maintenance granted at Rs. 3000/- per month be confirmed by setting aside and reducing the amount of maintenance at Rs. 15000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Non-Applicant No. 1, Smt. Pooja Gopwani, filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of herself and Non-Applicant No. 2 seeking maintenance from the applicant, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 1230/2024 before the Family Court. The applicant contested the said proceedings and, inter alia, raised a specific plea that Non-Applicant No. 1 had solemnized marriage with him after concealing the fact of her earlier marriage and without obtaining a valid decree of divorce from her previous husband, thereby rendering the legality and validity of the marriage a disputed issue. In this regard, the applicant instituted a separate civil proceeding, namely Civil Case No. 854/2025, seeking a declaration regarding the status and validity of the marriage, which is stated to be pending before the same Family Court. It is the grievance of the applicant that despite the pendency of the declaration suit involving a foundational issue directly affecting the 3 claim for maintenance, the Family Court proceeded with the maintenance case independently and, vide order dated 29.06.2026 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1230/2024, awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of the non- applicants. The applicant further contends that the Family Court failed to consider the pendency of the declaration proceedings and also overlooked the income particulars disclosed by Non-Applicant No. 1 in her affidavit, wherein, according to the applicant, there are discrepancies regarding her earnings and financial status. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2026 and contending that the issue relating to the validity of the marriage ought to have been adjudicated before determining the claim for maintenance, the applicant has preferred the present revision seeking setting aside of the impugned order and reconsideration of the matter in accordance with law. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to law and the material available on record. It is contended that a civil proceeding bearing Case No. 854/2025, instituted by the applicant seeking a declaration regarding the status and validity of the marriage between the parties, is pending before the same Family Court. According to the applicant, the issue as to whether Non-Applicant No. 1 is legally wedded wife of the applicant is a foundational question which ought to have been decided prior to adjudication of the maintenance proceedings. However, the learned Family Court proceeded to decide Misc. 4 Criminal Case No. 1230/2024 and awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to Non-Applicant No. 1 without clubbing the two matters or first deciding the declaration suit, thereby committing a jurisdictional error. It is further submitted that the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by Non-Applicant No. 1 on 18.09.2024 was not properly appreciated by the learned Family Court. It is argued that Non-Applicant No. 1 herself disclosed that she was earning approximately Rs.10,000/- per month and was therefore capable of maintaining herself. It is further submitted that a substantial portion of the expenditure claimed by Non-Applicant No. 1 related to the maintenance of Non-Applicant No. 2, however, the claim of maintenance in respect of Non-Applicant No. 2 was ultimately not allowed, and therefore the said expenditure ought not to have been taken into consideration while determining the quantum of maintenance payable to Non-Applicant No. 1. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to assign adequate reasons for enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- per month, which had earlier been awarded as interim maintenance, to Rs.15,000/- per month as final maintenance. It is therefore contended that the impugned order suffers from legal and factual infirmities and is liable to be set aside or, in the alternative, the quantum of maintenance awarded to Non-Applicant No. 1 deserves to be suitably reduced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record, and the material placed before it, has passed a well-reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The learned Family Court has duly examined the claim for maintenance in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and, upon being satisfied regarding the entitlement of Non-Applicant No. 1, awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. The record further reveals that the learned Family Court considered the respective contentions of the parties, including the objections raised by the applicant, and arrived at its conclusions on the basis of the evidence available before it. Merely because a separate civil proceeding concerning the validity of the marriage is pending would not, by itself, preclude the Family Court from adjudicating the maintenance proceedings, particularly when the issue of maintenance required immediate consideration. The learned Family Court has also taken into account the financial status and relevant circumstances of the parties while determining the quantum of maintenance. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of the material available on record. 6. Considering the submission 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 has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by 6 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 family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan