[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Yogita Bandhe vs Shekhar Bandhe on 7 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
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:
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Digitally • Call for the records of Misc. Criminal Case
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN No. 63/2025 from the Court of Family Court,
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
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
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
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.
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
