1 2025:CGHC:39148 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 970 of 2025 Akansha Kujur D/o Ajit Kujur Aged About 22 Years R/o Ajirma P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Ajeet Kujur S/o Khursay Aged About 52 Years R/o Fundurdihari P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for following reliefs:- “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and set-aside the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 35 of 2025 in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that there is no dispute that the non- applicant is the father of applicant. It is not in dispute that, the marriage of non-applicant with mother of applicant was solemnized KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 on 20.05.2000 and out of their wedlock, the applicant was born. But during their wedlock, some dispute was arose, therefore, the non- applicant was refused to accompany with the mother of applicant and thrown away from his house, therefore, the mother of applicant has filed the maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court in the year of 2008 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 42 of 2008. At the time of filing the aforesaid application, the applicant is near about 7 years and residing with her mother. The learned Family Court after hearing the parties, partly allowed the maintenance application of the applicant and directed the non-applicant to pay the maintenance to the applicant of Rs. 2300/- till the date of her marriage. Thereafter, when further expenses were required for studding of applicant, she again moved application for enhancement of maintenance amount before the learned Family Court bearing Misc. Criminal Case No. 178 of 2014. The learned Family Court after considering the rival contention of the parties, enhanced the maintenance amount from 2300/- to 2800/- vide its order dated 18.08.2015. The applicant at that time studding in Engineering College Digma in final year after completion of the same, she was going to Hyderabad for M.Tech,, the non-applicant is posted as Asst. Teacher and earned Rs. 1,06,760/- per month, therefore the applicant has again claimed Rs. 30,000/- per month. 3. The non-applicant while appearing before the learned Family Court, denied the entire contentions made in the enhancement application. After considering the same and hearing both the parties and reply of 3 the non-applicant, the learned Family Court has rejected the enhancement application on the ground that the applicant became major and further it has observed that in the present case, it has been established that the applicant’s mother has a higher monthly income than the non-applicant and only the applicant is dependent on her. On the other hand, the non-applicant has a lower monthly income and has three other dependents, in addition to being responsible for repayment of loans along with providing maintenance to the applicant. In such circumstances, the learned Family Court has rejected the same. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has wrongly appreciated the fact that the applicant is unmarried daughter and studding in Engineering College Digma at final year and after completion of the same, she was going to Hyderabad for M.Tech, therefore the amount of maintenance is required to be enhanced for further carrier of the applicant. He further submits that the daughter is entitled to leave as the lifestyle leaving as her father which has not been consider by the learned Family Court. He further submits that the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the father is also duty bound to bear the expenses of the applicant with regard to her educational expenses. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is liable to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant along with her mother before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance from the non-applicant. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 05.08.2010, directed the non- applicant to pay a sum of ₹2,300/- per month as maintenance to the applicant until her marriage. However, no discussion was made with regard to the applicant’s mother. Subsequently, when further expenses were incurred for the applicant’s education, she filed another application for enhancement of the maintenance amount before the learned Family Court, registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 178 of 2014. After considering the rival contentions of both parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 18.08.2015, enhanced the maintenance amount from ₹2,300/- to ₹2,800/- per month. At that time, the applicant was studying in the final year of Engineering at Digma College. After completing her engineering, she intended to pursue M.Tech in Hyderabad. Finding the existing maintenance amount insufficient to meet her expenses, she again approached the learned Family Court by filing an application under Section 146 of BNSS., seeking an enhanced maintenance amount of ₹30,000/- per month from the non-applicant. The non-applicant appeared before the Court and denied all the contentions raised in the enhancement application. After hearing both parties and considering the pleadings, the learned Family Court rejected the application for enhancement. It was observed that the applicant had attained majority and moreover, it was established that the 5 applicant’s mother was earning a higher monthly income than the non-applicant and only the applicant was dependent on her. Conversely, the non-applicant had a lower monthly income and was supporting three other dependents, in addition to having liabilities including loan repayments and the existing maintenance obligation towards the applicant. In view of these circumstances, the learned Family Court found no justification for further enhancement and accordingly rejected the application. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal