1 2025:CGHC:56687-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 107 of 2024 Sukalu Dewangan S/o Late Nand Kumar Dewangan Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Bus Stand, Purana Naka, Nadiyapara Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) -------(Non- Applicant) ... Appellant versus Ku. Anu Dewangan D/o Sukalu Dewangan, Aged About 18 Years Resident Of Post Office Ward, Amatalab, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (Cg) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Advocate on behalf of Mr. MPS Bhatia, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (21.11.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been preferred by the appellant-father against the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) in G & W Case No. 08-A/2023. The Family Court allowed the respondent-daughter’s application under SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.11.21 16:15:57 +0530 2 Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and awarded Rs 2,000/- in her favour, prompting this appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Father would submit that the Family Court has wrongly granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- in favour of Respondent/Daughter which deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent would submit that the order passed by learned Family Court is just and proper and required no interference. 4. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not disputed that the respondent is the appellant’s daughter. The appellant failed to maintain her, forcing her to live with her maternal uncle. Her mother is paralyzed, and she is presently studying in Class 12th. She filed an application under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act before the Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.), which was partly allowed. The Family Court held that the daughter has no source of income to pursue her studies and the appellant-father is legally responsible for her maintenance. Accordingly, the Court granted Rs 2,000/- per month in her favour, which we find to be justified. 6. Accordingly, we find no ground to entertain this appeal; thus, it is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge -Shubham