1 2026:CGHC:15833 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 465 of 2026 Prakash Agrawal S/o Late Shri Devkinandan Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o, C/o Subodh Haritwal, E-103, Near Bank Of Baroda, Samta Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg), Other R/o Banjar Para, Saddu, Police Station- Vidhansabha, Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg) ... Applicant(s) versus Pooja Agrawal @ Pooja Gupta W/o Shri Prakash Agrawal Aged About 34 Years R/o A-102, Sai Simran City, Bhawna Nagar, Khamhardih, Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ahmed Ayaan Mirza, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07 /04/2026 1. Heard Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ahmed Ayaan Mirza learned counsel for the applicant. 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C. No.1255/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has granted Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife in the application under Section 144 of BNSS. 3. Brief facts of the case according to the applicant are that the applicant and respondent, both divorcees, got acquainted through a matrimonial website “Jeevan Sathi” and solemnized their marriage on 23.12.2018 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur. The respondent has a daughter from her first marriage, who has been living with her. After marriage, disputes arose between the parties, with the respondent alleging cruelty and harassment by the applicant and his family, leading her to live separately with her daughter and seek interim maintenance. The applicant, however, contends that the respondent had already remarried another person (Charanjeet Singh) after her first divorce and, without obtaining divorce from him, married the applicant, thereby rendering their marriage void. He has also initiated criminal proceedings and filed a petition for declaration of the marriage as null and void. Despite these objections, the Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month to the respondent, which has been challenged by the applicant in the present revision. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the learned Family Court has erred in law and on facts while passing the impugned order dated 26.11.2025. It is submitted that the respondent suppressed material facts and solemnized marriage with the applicant on 23.12.2018 despite already being married to one Charanjeet Singh after her divorce from her first husband. Upon discovering this, the applicant initiated proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to registration of an FIR against the respondent and her sister. It is further alleged that the respondent lodged false criminal cases against the applicant and his family members, in which they have already been acquitted. She further submits that under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 BNSS), only a legally wedded wife is entitled to maintenance. Since the respondent’s marriage with the applicant is void ab initio due to subsistence of her earlier marriage, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The applicant has also filed proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaration of the marriage as null and void. She also submits that the applicant’s annual income is only Rs. 3–4 lakhs, and the grant of Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance is excessive and beyond his financial capacity. The learned Court, without properly appreciating the facts, evidence, and affidavit on record, has wrongly granted the said amount, which is unsustainable in law. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has granted Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife in the application under Section 144 of BNSS, holding that the marriage between the parties is an admitted fact and, at this stage, the rival allegations regarding cruelty and separate residence are matters of evidence which can only be adjudicated after trial. The Family Court further observed that since the respondent/wife is residing separately along with her daughter and has no independent source of income, it is necessary to provide her financial support during the pendency of the proceedings, and therefore, interim maintenance was justified till final disposal of the case. 7. Considering the submissions 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 this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 9. Needless to say that the Family Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the proceedings under Section 144 of BNSS expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil