1 CGHC010330822026 2026:CGHC:38561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2291 of 2026 1 - Akhil Sahani S/o Shri Anil Sahani Aged About 34 Years R/o L.I.G. 372, Padmanabhpur, Near Janta Market Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Aditi Sahani (Before Marriage Aditi Sharma) W/o Shri Akhil Sahani Aged About 33 Years R/o Flat No A/203, Chaitanya Greens, Near Ekta Chowk, Saddu, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 01.09.2026 1. The present Cr.M.P. has been preferred against the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by the learned IInd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Criminal MJC Case No. 1388/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has restrained the petitioner to ask relevant questions from the Respondent about her source of income and also refrained him to ask the questions relating to the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha {(2021) 2 SCC 324}. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS against the petitioner 2 seeking maintenance from him. The respondent-wife filed an affidavit in terms of the directions contained in Rajnesh (supra). The petitioner commenced cross-examination of the respondent with regard to the contents of the said affidavit. However, the learned Family Court restrained the petitioner from putting such questions and fixed the matter for 11.09.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present Cr.M.P. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the petitioner is not allowed to ask questions it may adversely affect his right and it will be against a fair proceeding, therefore, he would pray for quashment of the impugned order dated 03.08.2026. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Considering the fact of the case, it is quite vivid that the affidavit has been filed by the respondent in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (Supra) wherein it has been held that until and unless the contents of the affidavit is not subjected to cross-examination, it may adversely affect the right of the either party and it will be against fair opportunities to the parties. From the contents of the order, this aspect is missing, probably the learned Family Court without appreciating this aspect of the matter has passed the order. 6. Considering the fact and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (Supra), the impugned order dated 03.08.2026 is quashed and it is directed that learned Family Court shall allow the petitioner to ask questions arising out of the contents of the affidavit on 11.09.2026, however, be assured that no repetition shall be made and avoid wastage of the Court hours and try to complete his evidence on the same date. The respondent wife will also be at liberty to put questions on the 3 affidavit which has been filed by the petitioner in compliance with Rajnesh (Supra) to find out true earning of her husband. 7. It is further directed learned Family Court should not adopt any practice which may curtail right of the litigants to put questions in their defence subject to the condition that there should not be repetition or have no relevancy with the lis between the parties. He should keep balance between the fair opportunity and dragging of proceedings. This should be the object of the learned Family Court while proceeding with the trial. In future, he is directed to be cautious while affecting the rights of the litigants while cross-exaining the defence as it is the right of every litigant to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to put forth and defend his or her case, subject to reasonable restrictions against irrelevant questioning, unnecessary repetitions and wastage of Court hours. 8. Since the present order has been passed in absence of the respondent, without issuance of notice to her, the respondent shall be at liberty to seek recall of this order, if she is not satisfied with the order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present Cr.M.P. stands finally disposed of. 10. The Registrar (General) is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the concerning judge by tomorrow itself for necessary compliance and to remain cautious in future while conducting trial. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Deshmukh KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2026.09.01 14:13:43 +0530