Sachin Gofane S/o Shri Natthu Rao Gofane, Aged About 28 Years R/o L.I.G. 20 v. Babita Nayak W/o Sachin Gofane, Aged About 32 Years R/o Rawatpura Phase-2, Bhatagaon, Raipur
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:37234 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 927 of 2025 Sachin Gofane S/o Shri Natthu Rao Gofane, Aged About 28 Years R/o L.I.G. 20, Housing Board Colony, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Babita Nayak W/o Sachin Gofane, Aged About 32 Years R/o Rawatpura Phase-2, Bhatagaon, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Gajendra Chelak, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court Raipur Chhattisgarh, in M.C.C. No. 212/2025 and may kindly be reduced granting interim maintenance or to issue direction to the learned family court to expeditious decide the pending 2 M.C.C. No. 212/2025, in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants has filed an application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. for seeking a maintenance amount from the non-applicants wherein submits that she had solemnized marriage with the applicant in Arya Samaj Madir at Baijnath Para, Raipur Chhattisgarh on 14.08.2022 and just after some time of marriage, the applicant has harassed and mentally tortured the non-applicants in the name of less dowry and also demanded money from the non-applicants and due to cruel done by the applicant, the non-applicants left from her matrimonial house and living at her parental house. It is further alleged that the non-applicants has no any source of income and the applicant is running business of photo editing and on account of his work, he has earns Rs. 60,000/- per month income and also running business of booking from which he obtained amount of Rs. 50,000/- annually income. Due to lack of financial hardship, the applicants was filed an application, sought maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- along with interim maintenance application for granting amount of Rs. 10,000/-. from the non-applicant. 3. After issuing the notice to the applicant, the applicant has filed reply and denied the all averment pleaded in the application as well as application of interim maintenance amount. 4. The Learned family Court after framing the issues passed the order dated 16.07.2025 whereby partly allowed the application of the non- applicant and directed the applicant to pay the interim maintenance 3 amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned interim maintenance order passed by learned Family Court below is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the non applicant. The non-applicant did not like the applicant and his family member for living together and hence she wants to take decree of divorce whereas the applicant filed application under Section 09 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal right which is pending before the concerned Family Court Raipur Chhattisgarh. He further submits that after issuing notice of application under Section 09 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the non-applicant has deliberately intentionally filed application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. to harass the applicant without any sufÏcient reason. The non-applicant was lived with applicant only for 01 week at her matrimonial house and after some time of marriage, the non-applicant was always unnecessary dispute with the applicant without any sufÏcient reason and there was counseling in the society to solve their dispute, despite it, the non-applicant has acted cruel and misbehave with the applicant. He also submits that the non-applicant is running business of beauty parlor i.e. Mehandi Makeup of income 5000/-, Sangeet Makeup of income 5000/-, Cocktail Makeup of income 5000/-, reception Makeup of income 5000/- i.e. monthly income of 25,000/- and party Makeup of income 1500/- and like total income Rs. 26,500/- per day i.e. Rs. 7,95,000/- per month, and also she is giving house for rent, on account of rent house which is situated at New Raipur 4 Sector- 16 in which, she has obtained amount of Rs. 5000/- per month. Hence, the non-applicant has managed for survival herself and impugned interim maintenance order is liable to be set-aside. The applicant is having his old parents and unmarried sister and whole family members have totally dependent upon the applicant and there is no any members to take care of his old parents which is showing ration hence the impugned interim maintenance order is liable to be quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court after hearing both the parties, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 16.07.2025, whereby it has partly allowed the application and the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant/wife. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicant. Therefore, the interim maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 5 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused.
Decision
10. 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. 11. OfÏce 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 Kunal