1 2025:CGHC:52703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1304 of 2025 Ku. Priyal Gayakwad Daughter Of Vijay Kumar Gayakwad Aged About 11 Years Minor- Through- Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anita Gayakwad, Resident Of Purana State Bank Road, Ram Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Vijay Kumar Gayakwad Son Of Geetaram Gayakwad Aged About 43 Years Resident Of House No.4/b, Sadak No.16, H.S.C.L. Sector-7, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29 /10/2025 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the instant criminal revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 2 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1176/2021, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to the applicant, towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that an application under Section 125 of CrPC was filed by the applicant, the minor daughter of the respondent, claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month. It was stated that the marriage between the mother of the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 27.02.2008, and two children, Shivesh and Priyal (present applicant), were born out of the wedlock. The applicant resides with her mother. It was alleged that the respondent maintained illicit relations with several women and used to assault the applicant’s mother whenever she objected. On 28.05.2021, he again assaulted her, after which she started living with her parents. The mother of the applicant further submitted that the non-applicant is employed in the Home/Traffic Department with a monthly salary of Rs.45,000/- and additional agricultural income of about Rs.20,00,000/- annually. Despite this, the Family Court, after hearing both sides, passed the impugned order dated 03.07.2025, granting only Rs.3,500 per month as maintenance from the date of the order. The applicant contends that the amount 3 is inadequate and the order granting maintenance only from the date of the order is illegal, hence the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, passed without proper application of mind, and contrary to the spirit and object of Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court failed to appreciate that due to the continuous cruelty and ill-treatment by the respondent, the mother of the applicant was compelled to live separately and is unable to maintain herself and her children, while the father has willfully neglected his legal duty to provide maintenance. The Court also ignored the fact that the respondent, being a government employee in the Home Department and earning Rs.59,473/- per month, has sufficient means and no other dependents, and therefore the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month claimed by the applicant was reasonable. Despite sufficient evidence and statements proving the applicant’s case, the Family Court awarded only Rs.3,500 per month, which is inadequate, and further erred in granting maintenance from the date of the order instead of the date of filing of the application, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahjahan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2025 SCC Online 1342). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to the applicant, towards maintenance, after considering the evidence and circumstances of the case, concluded that the applicant is the legitimate minor daughter of the respondent, who is employed in the Police Department and earning a monthly salary between Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/-. The Court held that it is the legal and moral duty of the father to maintain his minor daughter. It was observed that the applicant is residing separately with her mother due to the conduct of respondent, who has failed to fulfill his responsibility of maintenance. The Court further noted that the respondent’s objections were unsupported by evidence and that his act of disclosing sensitive information about his minor daughter was unlawful. Accordingly, the Family Court after considering the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, has granted maintenance to the applicant as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 8. Considering the submissions 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. 5 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil