Bhagirathi Banjare vs Amlata Kurrey
2026 Latest Caselaw 21 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Bhagirathi Banjare vs Amlata Kurrey on 25 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                    1




                                                                  2026:CGHC:9853
                                                                                 NAFR

KUNAL
                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DEWANGAN


Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
                                       CRR No. 294 of 2026

            Bhagirathi Banjare S/o Shri Teejram Banjare Aged About 40 Years R/o
            Chanda Vihar Ameri, P.S. Sakri And Prathmesh Vihar, House No. 15
            Tehsil- Sakri, Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                                          ... Applicant(s)
                                               versus
            Amlata Kurrey W/o Bhagirathi Banjare Aged About 37 Years R/o Chanda
            Vihar Ameri, P.S. Sakri Tehsil Sakri Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                                  ... Non-applicant(s)

            For Applicant         : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate
            For Non-applicant     : None.


                            Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                                          Order on Board
            25.02.2026


               1.

I.A. No.1 of 2026 is an application for condonation of delay in filing

the revision of 14 days.

2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the

application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is

hereby condoned.

3. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Hon'ble

Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and impugned

order dated 10.10.2025 passed by Family Court Mungeli (C.G.) in

Misc. Criminal Case. No. 21/2024 may be set-aside in the ends of

justice.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the Non-applicant had filed an

application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned

Family Court, Mungeli, wherein it was stated that the marriage

between the applicant and the Non-applicant was solemnized on

03.06.2023 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. The Non-

applicant contended that she and the applicant lived peacefully

together till 28.10.2023. Thereafter, within a few months of the

marriage, the family members of the applicant allegedly started

harassing and torturing the Non-applicant. It was further alleged that

the applicant called the father and brother of the Non-applicant and

informed them that he did not wish to keep the Non-applicant with

him and asked them to take her back to her parental home. Since

then, the applicant and the Non-applicant have been living

separately.

5. The applicant could not file a reply before the learned Family Court

due to his non-appearance and the proceedings were conducted ex

parte against him. The applicant subsequently filed his affidavit

along with the affidavit of one Usha Banjare under Order XVIII Rule

4 of the CPC. In his affidavit, the applicant stated that he belongs to

the Satnami caste and that he had already contracted marriage with

one Alka in the year 2022 and that the parents of the Non-Applicant,

by exerting undue influence, compelled him to marry the Non-

Applicant. The applicant had also made a complaint in the year

2024 before the Superintendent of Police and the concerned Station

House Officer alleging that the Non-applicant was threatening him

and his parents, but no action was taken on the said complaint.

Despite the same, the learned Family Court granted interim

maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the Non-applicant vide

order dated 06.05.2024.

6. After hearing both the parties, the learned family Court decided the

matter whereby partly allowed the application filed by the wife under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay Rs.

10,000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of filing

of application. Hence, this revision.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order

passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and on facts and is

liable to be set aside. It is submitted that no lawful marriage was

solemnized between the applicant and the Non-applicant, as the

applicant was already married to one Alka Joshi in the year 2022

according to Hindu rites and rituals and therefore the Non-applicant

is not entitled to maintenance. It is further submitted that the Non-

applicant herself admitted in her cross-examination that she had not

mentioned the date of marriage or specific allegations of cruelty in

her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which indicates that the

proceedings have been initiated only to harass the applicant. It is

also submitted that the learned Family Court failed to consider that

the applicant has limited sources of income and heavy financial

liabilities, including repayment of a bank loan of Rs.12,00,000/- with

monthly installments of Rs.20,000/-, and maintenance and medical

expenses of his aged and physically disabled parents, for whom he

is paying maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month as per Court order.

It is further submitted that the Non-applicant is a well-educated lady

possessing higher qualifications and is capable of maintaining

herself and is also receiving financial assistance under the Mahtari

Vandana Yojana, wherein she has declared her marital status as

divorced. Despite these material facts, the learned Family Court has

mechanically awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the

Non-applicant, which is excessive and unsustainable in law.Thus

the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and

illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the

impugned order and other documents appended with revision.

9. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the

learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all

documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the

application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Family Court

concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹10,000/- per

month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of filing of application.

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 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 maintenance

so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side or

inadequate in the given circumstances.

10. Considering the submission 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

learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or

jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by

this Court.

11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is

hereby dismissed.

12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family

Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Kunal