1 2025:CGHC:37761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 658 of 2023 1 - Smt. Lakshmi Tandon W/o Shri Girish Kumar Tandon Aged About 37 Years R/o - C/o Vikas Anthony Indra Colony Bilaspur, Atmanand School, Tarbahar, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Khushbu Tandon D/o Shri Girish Kumar Tandon Aged About 20 Years R/o - C/o Vikas Anthony Indra Colony Bilaspur, Atmanand School, Tarbahar, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Girish Kumar Tandon S/o Shri Harishankar Tandon Aged About 50 Years R/o Kasdol, P. O. Kasdol, Tahsil And, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. R.L. Rajak, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31 /07/2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.1138/2022, whereby the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- in respect of applicant No.1 and terminated the application of applicant No.2 due to her attaining majority. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants, who are the wife and daughter of the respondent, a Head Constable in the Police Department, are seeking enhancement of maintenance amount. Initially, the Family Court awarded a total maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month (Rs.2,000 for the wife and Rs.3,000 each for the two children) based on the respondent's salary of Rs.24,185/- per month in 2014. However, the respondent's salary has increased significantly, reaching Rs.55,406/- per month in August 2022. The applicants filed an application under Section 127 CrPC for enhancement of maintenance amount. The Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount for the wife to Rs.3,000/- per month but denied maintenance to the daughter, Khushbu, on the grounds that she had attained majority. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the award of only Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife/applicant No. 1 is contrary to law, the said amount is insufficient for the wife/applicant No. 1 to maintain herself, considering the current cost of living. He further submits that the Family Court's finding that the major daughter (applicant No. 2) is not entitled to 3 maintenance is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhilasha vs. Prakash & Others (2020 SCC Online SC 736). According to this judgment, a major unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, even if she is not eligible under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court can exercise its power under Section 20(3) to grant maintenance to the major unmarried daughter in an application under Section 125 CrPC or Section 127 CrPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He also submits that the Family Court erred in not considering the respondent's current salary of Rs.55,406/- per month while determining the maintenance amount. The impugned order was passed in ignorance of the legal position, and therefore, it is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- in respect of applicant No.1 and terminated the 4 application of applicant No.2 due to her attaining majority based on the mutual consent of both parties. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil