1 2026:CGHC:16901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 490 of 2026 Rajesh Chelani S/o Shri Govindram Chelani Aged About 56 Years Resident Of Plot -1 B, Beside Om Driving School Near Mahatma Gandhi School Jaripatka Nagpur P.S. Jaripatka Tahsil And District- Nagpur Maharashtra, ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Usha Chelani W/o Rajesh Chelani Aged About 53 Years Daughter Of Shri Sunderdas Dewani Resident Of A-70 Radha Swami Nagar Raipur P.S. Purani Basti Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh And Other Address- Bhushan Chelani Son Of Rajesh Chelani Resident Of 4109 Silver Wood Iand Bedford Taxes 76021 (America) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Nita Choubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13 /04/2026 1. Heard Ms. Nita Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.107/2021, whereby learned KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Family Court has granted Rs. 7000/- per month to the non-applicant as interim maintenance from the date of filing of application, in the application under Section 144 of of BNSS. 3. Brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the non-applicant has filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court concerned, stating therein that on 16.11.1987, the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, three children (sons and daughter) were born, who are now married. After some time of the marriage, the applicant started quarrelling with the non- applicant and subjected her to mental and physical harassment on various pretexts, including allegations of illegal activities. It is further alleged that the applicant used to threaten the non-applicant with false criminal implication. Due to such cruelty and harassment caused by the applicant, the non-applicant was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and is presently residing at her parental house at Raipur and occasionally with her children residing in the United States of America. The non-applicant has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant is engaged in the business of machinery retail and sale and is earning approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. On this basis, the non-applicant filed an application seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month, along with an application for interim maintenance of the same amount. 4. Upon issuance of notice, the applicant appeared and filed his reply before the Family Court, raising objections and denying all the 3 averments made in the application, including the claim for interim maintenance. 5. The learned Family Court, after framing the issues, passed the impugned order dated 09.02.2026, whereby the application filed by the non-applicant has partly allowed and the applicant is directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of filing of application, till final disposal of the case. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.02.2026. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order granting interim maintenance passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that the non-applicant had earlier instituted proceedings under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), wherein a decree of divorce was granted vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.2021 and therefore, the non-applicant is not entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant. It is further submitted that the non-applicant is maintaining two bank accounts in ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank and her financial transactions are being managed through the accounts of her daughter and son-in- law, which clearly indicates that she has sufficient means for her livelihood. It is also contended that the non-applicant is residing partly at her parental house at Raipur and also with her children in the United States of America, where her son is employed at a senior position and thus she is financially supported by her children and is 4 capable of maintaining herself. It is further submitted that the non- applicant, without any justifiable reason, left the matrimonial home on her own and has failed to establish any sufficient cause for living separately and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. It is also argued that the non-applicant has not produced any cogent evidence to prove the income of the applicant, whereas in fact the applicant is dependent upon the income of his elder son and has no independent source of income. It is further contended that the non-applicant had, during her stay in the matrimonial home, created unnecessary disputes and behaved in a cruel manner despite efforts of reconciliation through social intervention and she has no intention to resume matrimonial life. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to consider these aspects and has passed the impugned order in the absence of the applicant, thereby causing grave prejudice. Hence, the amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month awarded as maintenance is excessive and liable to be set aside or suitably reduced in the interest of justice. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has duly considered the pleadings and material placed on record and passed a well-reasoned order granting interim maintenance of ₹7000/- per month to the non-applicant, holding the same to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the 5 case. Considering these circumstances, the Family Court held that the non-applicant is entitled to receive interim maintenance as aforementioned until final disposal of the case, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 11. 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 from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal