1 2025:CGHC:53571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1324 of 2025 Koushlesh @ Raja Tripathi S/o Shri S.N. Tripathi Aged About 44 Years R/o Nearby Bijli Office, Amakherwa, Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Seema Tripathi W/o Koushlesh @ Raja Tripathi Aged About 43 Years R/o Infront Of Durga Mandir, Amakherwa, Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 - Arpit Tripathi S/o Koushlesh @ Raja Tripathi Aged About 18 Years 13 Day, R/o Infront Of Durga Mandir, Amakherwa, Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03 /11/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by learned Family Court, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.90/2025, whereby, the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 146 BNSS filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that initially the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the applicant seeking maintenance allowance. The learned Family Court, vide order dated 15.05.2018, directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of the son as maintenance. The applicant thereafter filed an application under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) contending, inter alia, that the date of birth of the son (respondent No.2) is 26.01.2007, and since he has attained the age of 18 years, he is no longer entitled to claim maintenance. It was, therefore, prayed that the order of maintenance in respect of respondent No.2 (son) be set aside. The respondents filed their reply stating that the maintenance order does not restrict payment only till the son attains majority. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 is still a student, who has been allotted a seat in B.Tech Counselling 2025 at Bhilai Institute of Technology, Raipur, and that his annual academic fees amount to Rs. 1,54,300/-, which clearly shows his dependence on the mother and the need for continued maintenance. After considering the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record, the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, vide order dated 3 11.08.2025, dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. Being aggrieved by the said order, present revision has been filed by the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles of law. The learned Family failed to appreciate that as per Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, a child is entitled to maintenance only till he attains the age of majority, unless suffering from any physical or mental disability. In the present case, respondent No.2 (son) has attained the age of 18 years and is not shown to be incapacitated in any manner, hence, he is not legally entitled to maintenance under the said provision. The proper remedy, if any, lies under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which governs maintenance of major children pursuing education. Therefore, the learned Family Court has committed a serious error in law in rejecting the applicant’s application under Section 146 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, vide order dated 11.08.2025, has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 146 of the BNSS, observing that although the son (respondent No.2) has attained majority, he is still not financially independent and is pursuing his B.Tech studies, thereby being unable to maintain himself. The Court held that the father’s responsibility to bear the educational and maintenance expenses of his son does not cease merely upon the son attaining majority, and therefore, there exists no sufficient ground to set-aside the maintenance order earlier passed in favour of respondent No.2. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil