1 2025:CGHC:33495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 857 of 2025 Reetu Singh Alias Guddi D/o Late Bharat Bhusan Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Narkalo, Police Station And Tehsil- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Memvati Singh W/o Late Bharat Bhusan Singh Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Attendant (Education Department), R/o- Village- Pandripaani Loshangi, Police Station And Tehsil- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and impugned order dated 26.04.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 122/2024 by Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.), RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 passed in the matter of "Reetu Singh v. Memvati Singh" may kindly be set-aside and the application filed by applicant may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section 144(1)(b) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Family Court, seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the non-applicant, who is her stepmother. The applicant is the daughter of Late Bharat Bhushan Singh, who was a government lecturer and used to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance under orders passed in earlier proceedings under Section 125 and 127 of Cr.P.C. After the father’s death on 24.03.2023, the non-applicant received all retiral dues and also secured a government job through compassionate appointment, drawing a salary of Rs. 21,990/- per month. The applicant, a student of M.Sc. (Physics) 1st semester at Government Nagarjuna Science College, Raipur, submitted that she has no independent income and requires financial support for her education and basic needs. In response, the non-applicant denied liability, stating she is not the legal heir of the applicant, has her own financial responsibilities, and that the applicant is major and was raised by her maternal side. The learned Family Court dismissed the application on the ground that under Section 144(1)(b) of BNSS, only a minor can claim maintenance and held that a stepmother has no legal obligation to maintain a major stepdaughter. Aggrieved by this, the applicant has filed the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the 3 impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, and thus liable to be set aside. The Court has failed to properly interpret Section 144(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, by holding that an unmarried daughter who is unable to maintain herself is not entitled to maintenance merely because she is not a minor, despite being dependent on the deceased father during his lifetime. The Court also overlooked the binding precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manjulata, (2002) SCC (Cri) 1147, which recognizes the right of an unmarried daughter to claim maintenance till her marriage under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The applicant was receiving Rs. 8,000/- monthly from her father, and after his death, the non-applicant who secured compassionate appointment and received the retiral dues and part of the estate is legally and morally obligated under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act to maintain her. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant, being a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate and government employment, is liable to support the applicant, especially when she is pursuing her education and has no independent income. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court is just, reasoned, and in accordance with the provisions of law. The Court has rightly held 4 that under Section 144(1)(b) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the right to claim maintenance is confined to minors who are unable to maintain themselves. In the present case, the applicant is admittedly a major and pursuing higher education, and therefore does not fall within the ambit of the said provision. Furthermore, the non-applicant, being the stepmother, is not recognized under the law as having a legal obligation to maintain a major stepchild, particularly in the absence of any statutory or binding precedent to the contrary. The Court also took into account the fact that the applicant was raised by her maternal family and that the non-applicant is already burdened with maintaining her own minor children and in-laws. 7. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed, with liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate forum for any further relief that may be available under law. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan