1 2026:CGHC:1162 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 5 of 2026 Ishansh Sahu S/o Shri Amit Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Shikshak Colony, Kota, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Puja Sahu W/o Shri Ishansh Sahu Aged About 28 Years D/o. Shri Ram Narayan Sahu, R/o. 35b Divya Colony, Near Kukreja Farm House, Amlidih, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 22.11.2025 (ANNEXURE A-1), passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 734/2025 (Smt. Puja Sahu Vs Ishansh Sahu), in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent (wife) instituted an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 along with an application for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/-, alleging that her marriage with the applicant (husband) was solemnized on 10.05.2025 at Divya Colony, Amlidih, Raipur, according to Hindu rites and rituals. It was alleged that after marriage, the applicant’s girlfriend used to frequently visit and stay in the matrimonial home, and thereafter the parents of the applicant subjected the respondent to mental cruelty and harassment on account of dowry. It was further alleged that on 09.06.2024, the applicant left the respondent at her maternal home on the pretext of her ill health and later brought her back on 29.06.2024; however, despite counselling held at the Women Cell, Raipur on 08.07.2024 and 10.07.2024, the respondent was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home on 11.07.2024. It was further pleaded that the applicant has su@cient means of income, whereas the respondent has no independent source of livelihood, compelling her to seek interim maintenance during pendency of the main application. The applicant Aled his reply denying the allegations and contending that the respondent herself used to make false allegations regarding his alleged relationship and that she is working as a teacher earning Rs.10,000–12,000 per month. The learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings, passed the impugned order dated 22.11.2025 granting interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and has been passed without proper appreciation of the material placed before it. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is a person of meagre income and is somehow managing the expenses of his aged parents. He further submits that the interim maintenance awarded in favour of the respondent is on the higher side considering the Anancial condition of the applicant, who is only assisting his father in a furniture business and does not have any independent or substantial source of income. It is further argued that the learned Family Court, in an arbitrary manner and without due consideration of the evidence, has partly allowed the interim maintenance application Aled by the respondent, rendering the impugned order illegal and liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned order dated 22.11.2025. The learned Family Court has taken into account the marital relationship between the parties, the allegations of cruelty and ouster from the matrimonial home, as well as the Anancial capacity of the applicant and the absence of a su@cient independent source of income of the respondent. After evaluating the rival submissions and the needs of 4 the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings, the learned Family Court has judiciously exercised its discretion in granting a reasonable amount of interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. The impugned order is well reasoned, based on the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the Anding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not And any illegality or inArmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 7. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 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. O@ce is directed to send a certiAed copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan