1 2025:CGHC:51167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1235 of 2025 1. Smt. Pushpa Sahu W/o Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Julum (Tekari) Police Station And Tehsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Ku. Yamini Sahu D/o Shri Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village- Julum (Tekari) Police Station And Tehsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1. Dhaniram Sahu S/o Muneshwar Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Sivni (Dhusera), Tehsil Police Station And Tehsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Ku. Harshu Sahu D/o Shri Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor And Are Respresented Through Their Mother Nemely Smt. Pushpa Sahu W/o Dhaniram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village- Julum (Tekari) Police Station And Tehsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Mayank Sahu S/o Shri Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 11 Years Minor And Are Respresented Through Their Mother Nemely Smt. Pushpa Sahu W/o Dhaniram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village- Julum (Tekari) Police Station And Tehsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.10.15 18:38:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. 14.10.2025 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.1252/2024, wherein the application for grant of interim maintenance filed by the applicants has been allowed only with respect to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (minor children) and rejected with respect to the applicant No.1/wife and applicant No.2(Major daughter). 3. The brief facts of the case is that the applicants herein preferred an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of maintenance. Along with it, an application for interim maintenance was also filed. The application was filed on the grounds that the marriage between Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.1 was solemnized in 2005, and three children were born from the said wedlock: (i) Yamini Sahu (Applicant No.2), (ii) Harshu Sahu (Respondent No.2), and (iii) Mayank (Respondent No.3). It was averred that Respondent No.1 is addicted to alcohol and, under its influence, habitually abuses, assaults, and ill-treats Applicant No.1, while also making false and derogatory remarks against her character. On 02.02.2024, around 9:00 PM, Respondent No.1 physically assaulted Applicant No.1, and when Applicant No.2 3 intervened, she too was assaulted. Despite several social and community interventions, Respondent No.1 did not mend his behavior. Due to persistent cruelty and ill-treatment, the applicants were compelled to leave the matrimonial home, and Applicant No.1 took shelter at her parental residence along with her children. It was further stated that Respondent No.1 is financially sound he owns approximately 5 acres of agricultural land, holds a fixed deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- earning regular interest, and works as a painter earning about Rs. 600/- per day. His estimated monthly income is around Rs. 40,000/-. The applicants, being his legally wedded wife and children, are entirely dependent on him, and it is both his legal and moral obligation to maintain them. Accordingly, a monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- was sought. Respondent No.1 filed a detailed reply denying all the applicants’ claims. He alleged that Applicant No.1 earns approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month through stitching and running a beauty parlour, and has disclosed an annual agricultural income of Rs. 40,000/- in her affidavit. He also denied the financial status attributed to him by the applicants. The learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, passed the impugned order granting Rs. 3,000/- each to Respondents No. 2 and 3, totaling Rs. 6,000/- per month, but denied maintenance to the applicants. 4. It is respectfully submitted that Applicant No.1, being uneducated, inadvertently mentioned her husband's income as her own in the affidavit, which led to the denial of interim maintenance. The court 4 has acknowledged this as a genuine mistake. This unintentional error should not be a ground to deny her lawful right to maintenance. Furthermore, interim maintenance was denied to Applicant No.2 solely on the ground that she is an adult (over 18 years) and not physically or mentally challenged. However, under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, an unmarried adult daughter is entitled to claim maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, and is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to appreciate the averments and declarations made by the applicant No.1 regarding the income of respondent No.1. The rejection of the application for interim maintenance is wholly unjustified and amounts to a denial of justice to the applicant No.1/wife and the unmarried daughter. The learned Family Court erred in refusing interim maintenance solely on account of a bona fide mistake in the applicant's affidavit, wherein the income of respondent No.1 was inadvertently mentioned under her own name. Such an unintentional error should not deprive her of her lawful right to maintenance. The applicants have no independent source of income and are entirely dependent on respondent No.1 for their livelihood. Due to repeated acts of cruelty and for their safety, the applicant No.1 had no choice but to leave the matrimonial home. 5 Respondent No.1 is financially capable, earning approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month through agricultural income, fixed deposits, and painting work, and hence has sufficient means to provide maintenance. The learned Family Court erred in denying interim maintenance to Applicant No.2 solely on the ground that she is an adult. The learned Family Court also failed to properly assess the financial capacity of respondent No.1, who owns agricultural land, maintains fixed deposits, and earns a regular income as a painter facts that establish his clear ability to provide the maintenance amount sought by the applicants. The impugned order suffers from perversity in both law and fact, as it denies interim maintenance despite clear and undisputed evidence of cruelty, financial dependency, and the respondent’s adequate means to provide for the applicants. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be 6 and is hereby dismissed. 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 Preeti