Rajesh Chelani vs Smt. Usha Chelani
2026 Latest Caselaw 1633 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajesh Chelani vs Smt. Usha Chelani on 13 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                 1




                                                               2026:CGHC:16901
                                                                              NAFR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN


Digitally
signed by
                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN



                                     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

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

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

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

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