1 2026:CGHC:6344 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 368 of 2026 Umashankar Yadav S/o Shri Dukhharan Yadav Aged About 57 Years R/o Ghorbandha, Police Station And Tahsil Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. ... Petitioner versus Smt. Prabhawati @ Prabha Devi W/o Shri Umashankar Yadav Aged About 57 Years R/o Dhandkhaduwa, Police Station And Tahsil Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate. For Respondent : Not noticed Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 04/02/ 2026 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District-Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) in CRR No.37/2025, arising out of order dated 17.07.2025 passed by learned JMFC District- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Criminal Complainant SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.05 16:48:29 +0530 2 Case No.40/2024. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 144 BNSS in the court of learned JMFC, seeking interim maintenance, stating that she married the applicant on 13.02.1995, and they have a son, Pradeep. The petitioner/husband, a clerk in the Water Resources Department, now posted as a Pump Operator in Rajpur, kept her well for a year and a half after marriage at Shankargarh and Rajpur. The applicant allegedly became abusive under the influence of alcohol and stopped providing money for her and their son. The respondent claims she has no income and is struggling to survive, while the applicant is capable of supporting her and their son. She sought Rs. 8,000 as interim maintenance. 3. The learned JMFC after perusal of the case passed the order on 17.07.2025 to the effect that the petitioner/husband shall pay the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance till final disposal of the case in favour of Respondent/wife. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed a revision before the learned Session Judge, Balrampur Ramanujgan C.G. and vide impugned order dated 16.12.2025, the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order of learned JMFC. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the Petitioner/husband. 3 4. The petitioner's counsel argues that the respondent is not the petitioner's legally married wife, as she was married to Hariram Yadav, and that marriage was not dissolved by any Court. He further submits that Pradeep is not the son of the petitioner, but the son of Hariram. Both the Courts below have committed grave error in not appreciating the material facts and evidence on record and passed the erroneous orders, which are liable to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the documents available on record. 6. The petitioner's defense in the trial Court was that the respondent is Hariram's wife, and he hasn't married her, and Pradeep isn't their son but Hariram's son. These facts are subject to evidence. At present, this Court do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order that warrants interference with the order. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham