1 CGHC010327762026 2026:CGHC:37508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2206 of 2026 • Ravi Vishwakarma S/o Ajay Vishwakarma Aged About 35 Years R/o Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar In Front Of Om Shanti Colony, Nawapara, Rajim, District- Raipur, C.G. (Details Of Petitioner Wrongly Mentioned In Ann. P/2) ... Petitioner(s) versus • Neha Vishwakarma W/o Ravi Vishwakarma Aged About 30 Years R/o- Shivnagar, Badhaipara, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. (Details Of Res. As Mentioned In Ann. P/2 Adjusting Her Present Age) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 21.08.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this Cr.M.P. under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for assailing the order dated 12.08.2026 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 17 of 2023 by which the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 7(2) of Family Court Act wherein the non-applicant/petitioner has contended that on 17.06.2026 it has been brought to the notice of MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.08.21 18:26:20 +0530 2 the non-applicant/petitioner that the respondent wife is working as Office Executive and having employee code - 4051006474 and also earning the income and also getting salary from the said employment to the tone of Rs. 13,500/- and salary slip has also been placed on record and also prayed for issuance of direction to issue summon to the respondent for examining their evidence and the application was rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.08.2026. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court mechanically rejected the application without taking into consideration the relevancy of the document as it can throw light on the issue raised in the application pending before the trial Court, thus he would pray for allowing the present criminal misc. petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. The record of the case would show that respondent wife has filed application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner/non-applicant has a shop and getting Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and also pay income tax, thus, he has sufficient income to give the maintenance to the applicant as she was solely dependant upon her husband. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the law with regard to grant of maintenance in case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 in para 72.7(g) has held that if during the course of proceedings, there is a change in the financial status 3 of any party, or there is change of any relevant circumstances, or fi some new information comes to light, the party may submit an amended/supplementary affidavit, which would be considered by the Court at the time of final determination. 6. Since the petitioner is at liberty to take the benefit of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh (Supra), the instant criminal misc. petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy before the trial Court as provided by the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the eventuality of filing the application before the learned trial Court, learned trial Court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra) and it will also grant liberty to the applicant wife that she can also file rebuttal affidavit as per judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh (Supra). 7. With aforesaid observation and direction, the instant criminal misc. petition is disposed of granting aforesaid liberty in favour of the petitioner and respondent. 8. Consequently, pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish