1 2026:CGHC:4954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 153 of 2026 Pappu Yadav @ Nitin Yadav S/o Shri Daulat Ram Yadav Aged About 53 Years Occupation At Present, No Work Due To Illness, R/o Mathpara, Near Budhamahadev Mandir, Kawardha, P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Kulvantin Bai @ Laxmi @ Laxmin D/o Pappu Yadav @ Nitin Yadav Aged About 28 Years Occupation Cooking In Marriage Party And Contractor, R/o Near Satbahaniya Mandir, Fulwari Chowk, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Prabha Yadav D/o Pappu Yadav @ Nitin Yadav Aged About 32 Years Occupation Ladies Tailor, R/o Near Satbahaniya Mandir, Fulwari Chowk, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Roshan @ Rohan Yadav S/o Pappu Yadav @ Nitin Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Near Satbahaniya Mandir, Fulwari Chowk, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and direct the non-applicants, jointly and severally, to pay monthly maintenance of ₹30,000 (or such amount as this Hon'ble Court deems fit) to the applicant from the date of the original application, with arrears and interest at 9% per annum, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant is the father of the non-applicants, who are his legitimate children and who had earlier filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from him and were granted maintenance for a long period. Subsequently, by order dated 23.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham in Misc. Criminal Case No. 85/2023, the applicant was relieved from the obligation of paying maintenance to the non-applicants on the ground that they had attained majority and were physically and mentally fit. The applicant thereafter filed the present application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the non-applicants, pleading that he is aged, unemployed, suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes for the last several years, incurring medical expenses of about Rs.5,000/- per month, and is also required to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to his wife, rendering him unable to maintain himself. It was contended that the non-applicants, despite being major and having sufÏcient means, are neglecting to maintain him, though they allegedly earn through various occupations. The non- 3 applicants opposed the application denying the income attributed to them and contending that the applicant is financially sound, owns agricultural land, runs a dairy business, does truck driving and fruit selling work, has contracted a second marriage, and has sufÏcient income to maintain himself, while further alleging that the non- applicants are unemployed and dependent on their mother. The learned Family Court framed a sole issue regarding the entitlement of the applicant to maintenance, recorded evidence of the parties, and upon due consideration of the pleadings and material on record, dismissed the application for maintenance, against which the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the statutory mandate under Section 125(1)(d) Cr.P.C., which casts a legal obligation upon adult children having sufÏcient means to maintain their parents who are unable to maintain themselves. The uncontroverted evidence of the applicant regarding his advanced age, chronic ailments of diabetes and hypertension for the last 15 years, unemployment, medical expenditure, and financial distress clearly establishes his incapacity to maintain himself, which has been completely ignored. The learned Court also erred in disregarding the applicant’s evidence that the non-applicants are major, physically and mentally fit, and 4 earning sufÏcient income, and in mechanically accepting their bald denials without any inquiry into their earning capacity. The impugned order is further vitiated as the learned Family Court overlooked the admitted fact that the applicant maintained the non- applicants for nearly 17 years until relieved by order dated 23.05.2024, and thereafter the non-applicants have neglected their moral and legal duty. The Court misdirected itself by relying upon unsubstantiated allegations regarding the applicant’s alleged second marriage and income, which were neither proved nor relevant to the core issue under Section 125(1)(d) Cr.P.C., and by failing to frame proper issues regarding the means of the non- applicants and the incapacity of the applicant, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The impugned order, by denying maintenance to an aged and ailing father, violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is against settled legal principles and public policy, and warrants interference under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record. The learned Court correctly considered the rival contentions and found that the applicant failed to establish his inability to maintain himself, particularly in view of the evidence indicating that he owns 5 agricultural land, carries on dairy and fruit-selling business, undertakes truck-driving work, and has sufÏcient means to support himself. The learned Family Court also took note of the fact that the non-applicants, though having attained majority, disputed the alleged income attributed to them and asserted their own dependency and lack of stable earnings, which the applicant failed to disprove by cogent evidence. The finding recorded by the learned Family Court that no case for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was made out is based on sound reasoning. The impugned order reflects a judicious exercise of discretion, as it is in consonance with law and the evidence on record. 6. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan