1 2025:CGHC:40573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 271 of 2024 Rinku @ Balvinder Singh Bhatiya S/o Late Harbansh Singh Bhatiya Aged About 52 Years R/o Adarsh Colony, Dayalbandh, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appicant(s) versus Ku. Gungun @ Ispreet Kaur D/o Rinku @ Balvinder Singh Bhatiya Aged About 20 Years R/o Yadunandan Nagar, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.910/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 month to respondent towards maintenance till she attains the age of majority. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent is the daughter of the applicant. She is currently residing separately with her mother. The respondent’s parents were divorced on 04.07.2013. The respondent is a student pursuing her education, however, due to her mother’s poor financial condition and lack of sufficient income, the respondent’s studies have been discontinued, and she was expelled from school for non-payment of fees. In addition, the respondent faces financial difficulties in meeting her basic needs such as food, clothing, and medicine. Being a student, the respondent is unable to engage in any employment. The applicant operates two restaurants under the name “Sanjha Chulha” in Bilaspur and the other on Raipur Road each earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per day. Apart from this, the applicant owns four shops in Bilaspur, from which he receives a monthly rental income of Rs.30,000/-. The applicant also owns a house in Bilaspur, where the first floor is operated as a hostel, generating a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-. Furthermore, the applicant owns and operates four-wheeler vehicles, which he rents out, earning an additional Rs.50,000/- per month. Thus, the applicant is a financially well-off person. The respondent seeks a direction for the applicant to pay her Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the 3 respondent / daughter. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, being 80% visually impaired, is unable to work or earn a livelihood and is entirely dependent on his relatives, receiving only Rs.350/- per month under a BPL scheme. He contends that the respondent’s mother had already received a one-time settlement covering the respondent’s maintenance, rendering the present application under Section 125 CrPC untenable. The Family Court’s order directing maintenance, despite his incapacity and lack of income, is contrary to legal principles and causes him undue hardship. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4 filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance till she attains the age of majority observing that since the applicant has not offered to maintain the respondent while keeping her with him, and given that the respondent resides with her mother following the parents’ divorce, there exists sufficient reason for the respondent to live separately and claim maintenance from the applicant. Furthermore, there is no oral or documentary evidence to show that the respondent has any source of income, it cannot be held that she is capable of maintaining herself. Although the applicant has denied the respondent’s claims regarding his businesses and income, and no conclusive documentary proof of such businesses has been produced, the evidence of his 80% visual disability alone is insufficient to establish that he is incapable of earning. Moreover, it is established that the respondent is the daughter of the applicant, has sufficient reason to live separately, is unable to maintain herself, and the applicant is capable of maintaining her. However, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a daughter is entitled to maintenance from her father only until she is a minor unless any physical disability is proved. Since no such disability is shown and the respondent attained majority on 19.06.2022, she is entitled to maintenance only up to that date. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Interim relief granted on 19.04.2024 stands vacated. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil