1 2026:CGHC:15832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 466 of 2026 1 - Smt. Yogita Bandhe W/o Shri Shekhar Bandhe Aged About 30 Years W/o Shri Shekhar Bandhe, R/o Ward No. 09, Macheva, P.S. And Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Geetansh Bandhe Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian/mother Smt. Yogita Bandhe R/o Ward No. 09, Macheva, P.S. And Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Shekhar Bandhe S/o Shri Lakhan Bandhe Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Basin, Tehsil Rajim, District Gariaband (C.G.), Presently Posted As Patwari, Halka No. 38, Lohersing, Tehsil Rajim, District Gariaband (C.G.) … Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.04.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly: • Call for the records of Misc. Criminal Case No. 63/2025 from the Court of Family Court, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Mahasamund. • Set aside the impugned order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund. • Allow the application for interim maintenance and direct the non-applicant to pay reasonable interim maintenance to the petitioners, as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court. • Alternatively, remand the matter to the learned Family Court with a direction to decide the interim maintenance application afresh in accordance with law. • Grant any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant/wife filed an application for grant of interim maintenance, inter alia stating that her marriage with the non-applicant/husband was solemnized on 29.04.2018 at Mahasamund in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and out of the wedlock, a daughter namely Ku. Vidhi Bandhe was born on 01.07.2019 and a son namely Gitansh Bandhe was born on 24.10.2023, after marriage, the applicant resided with the non-applicant, who is a government servant working as a Patwari, at different places of his posting and thereafter at Village Basin while he used to commute to his place of posting at Rajim. It is alleged by the applicant that the non-applicant developed relations with a co-worker namely Sangeeta Purena and used to pressurize her to accept the said relationship, coupled with 3 continuous harassment, cruelty and demand of dowry including a car and Rs. 10 lakhs, and that despite payments made by her parents from time to time, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty, and ultimately was left at her parental home during her illness and pregnancy without any financial support. The applicant further pleaded that she has no independent source of income and is dependent on her parents for survival along with her minor child, whereas the non-applicant earns approximately Rs. 45,000/- per month and also has substantial agricultural income, and thus sought interim maintenance of Rs. 45,000/- per month. Upon notice, the non-applicant filed his reply admitting the marriage and birth of daughter Vidhi but denying paternity of the second child Gitansh on the ground that there was no physical relationship between the parties after March 2022, alleging that the applicant conceived the child through relations with another person, and further denied all allegations of dowry demand and illicit relationship, contending that the applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home and is gainfully supported by her parental family, it was also contended that the non-applicant is already bearing the expenses of the minor daughter Vidhi who is residing with him, and has also initiated divorce proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, supported by a DNA test report. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, the learned Family Court observed that the disputed questions regarding paternity, alleged misconduct and entitlement require adjudication on the basis of evidence during trial, and considering that the matter is of summary 4 nature under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. and is capable of early disposal, found no sufficient ground for grant of interim maintenance, and accordingly rejected the application for interim maintenance filed by applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has committed a grave error in law in adjudicating disputed questions relating to paternity and alleged adultery at the stage of consideration of interim maintenance, which issues can only be properly determined after a full-fledged trial on the basis of evidence. He further submits that at the stage of interim maintenance, the Court is only required to examine the prima facie relationship between the parties, their dependency and the means of the non-applicant, which stand sufficiently established in the present case. He also submits that the learned Court below further failed to consider the statutory presumption of legitimacy attached to a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage. Further that reliance placed upon an alleged DNA report at the interim stage, without the same being duly proved in accordance with law, is wholly illegal and unsustainable. It is further submitted that the non-applicant, being a government employee, has sufficient means to maintain the applicants, whereas the applicants have no independent source of income, thereby clearly entitling them to interim maintenance. The impugned order defeats the very object and spirit of maintenance laws, which are intended to prevent destitution and ensure basic subsistence, and the impugned order 5 suffers from material irregularity as well as jurisdictional error, and is therefore liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of both parties and the material available on record, has rightly and judiciously passed the impugned order. Further the learned Court has properly appreciated the rival contentions, including the dispute regarding paternity of the child, allegations of misconduct, and the respective claims of the parties, and has rightly observed that such disputed questions of fact can only be adjudicated upon on the basis of evidence during the course of full-fledged trial. The learned Court has further taken into account the summary nature of proceedings under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. and the likelihood of early disposal of the case, and therefore found no sufficient ground to grant interim maintenance at this stage, and thus, the impugned order being well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts and law, and passed in the interest of justice. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 7. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 6 8. 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 BNSS, preferably within a period of three months, if there is no any legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan