1 2026:CGHC:5817 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 710 of 2024 1. Smt. Paridhi Parihar W/o Arvind Parihar Aged About 45 Years R/o Bhkarupara, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, C.G. Present R/o Aadka Chhepda, Soni, Para, Kondagaon, District (C.G.) 2. Ku. Awni Parihar, D/o Arvind Parihar Aged About 17 Years (Now 19 Years) Minor Represented By Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Paridhi Parihar R/o Bhkarupara, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, C.G. Present R/o Aadka Chhepda, Soni, Para, Kondagaon, District (C.G.) 3. Ku. Awishi Parihar, D/o Arvind Parihar Aged About 11 Years Minor Represented By Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Paridhi Parihar R/o Bhkarupara, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, (C.G.) Present R/o Aadka Chhepda, Soni, Para, Kondagaon, District (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Arvind Parihar S/o Late Brijlal Singh Parihar, Aged About 52 Years R/o Subhashpara, Bhanupratappur, P.S. Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel, appearing for the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.03 14:39:33 +0530 2 respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicants seeking following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the family court act and in exercise thereof call for the records of the case from the learned Family Court and after hearing the parties in the matter, set aside the impugned order dated 30-01-2024 (Annexure-P/1) in Mis. Cri. case No.24 /2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Kondagaon and allow the application filed under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and grant the maintenance to Petitioner no. 1 and 2 and also direct to grant maintenance to applicantno. 3 till her marriage.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant No.1 and the respondent herein are husband and wife. They were married on 12.05.2003 at Bakharupara, Narayanpur, according to Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife, and out of the said wedlock, two daughters, namely applicant Nos. 2 and 3, were born. The applicants herein filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Kondagaon, making averments therein that applicant No.1 was subjected to cruelty and ill- treatment by the respondent and his family members, particularly after the birth of the second daughter. It was stated that the respondent was practicing as an Advocate at Bhanupratappur, and therefore took applicant No.1 to reside there. It was further averred that the younger 3 sister of applicant No.1 and the nephew of the respondent were in a love affair and subsequently solemnized their marriage, due to which the respondent and his sister started harassing and torturing applicant No.1. The respondent restricted applicant No.1 from meeting or even talking to her parents. The respondent further forced applicant No.1 to earn money by taking up employment and even compelled her to travel more than 40–50 kilometres on a motorcycle during her pregnancy. Applicant No.1 was also suffering from gynaecological problems, but the respondent failed to provide proper medical care. It was further stated that applicant No.1 was working in a private teaching institute, where the respondent used to file RTI applications and create nuisance, as a result of which the said institute terminated her services. Thereafter, the respondent forcibly evicted the applicant from the matrimonial house and dropped the applicants by taxi in the year 2014–15. The applicants further stated that the respondent had earlier filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, when the applicants attempted to return to the matrimonial house, they were not permitted to enter, and their household articles were retained by the respondent. 4. It was also averred that applicant No.1 is somehow managing to maintain herself and the children with assistance from her parents, but the financial condition has now become extremely critical, compelling the applicants to file the maintenance petition. It was further stated that the respondent is practicing as an Advocate and also working as a Public Notary, earning Rs. 60,000–70,000/- per month, and is also possessing agricultural land from which he earns additional income of about Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum. Accordingly, maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- per month was claimed. 4 5. After filing of the maintenance application, the learned Family Court issued notice to the respondent. Upon service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed his reply denying the allegations made by the applicants, while admitting the factum of marriage and the birth of two daughters. 6. Thereafter the learned Family Court permitted the parties to lead evidence, heard the matter, and passed the final order whereby the maintenance claim of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 was rejected on the ground that applicant No.1 failed to prove her case and applicant No.2 had attained majority. Maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month was awarded only to applicant No.3 till her majority. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse and not sustainable in law or on the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the divorce petition filed by the respondent on the ground of cruelty had already been dismissed, and the findings recorded therein in a civil proceeding are binding and relevant in the present quasi-civil proceedings. He also submits that learned Family Court has wrongly drawn a presumption of adultery against applicant No.1, despite the fact that the respondent did not take any such plea in his reply, nor was any specific or cogent evidence led by him in this regard. Learned Family Court erred in holding that merely because the respondent underwent sterilization, it stands established that the respondent and his family members did not torture applicant No.1 with the expectation of a male child. Such a finding is unsustainable in law. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that applicant No.1 specifically pleaded that she was subjected to cruelty even after the love marriage between her sister and the respondent’s nephew. However, the learned trial Court 5 erroneously justified such conduct, which is contrary to law. Learned Family Court erred in holding that forcing applicant No.1 to take up employment, even during pregnancy and while suffering from gynaecological ailments, does not amount to cruelty. Such a finding is contrary to settled legal principles and the evidence on record. Learned Family Court erred in refusing to grant maintenance to applicant No.2 solely on the ground that she had attained majority at the time of passing of the judgment, whereas she was a minor on the date of filing of the maintenance application. As per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Family Court is competent to grant maintenance to major daughters even in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The impugned order ignores this settled position of law. He further submits that learned Family Court committed a grave error in denying maintenance to applicant No.2 and in granting maintenance to applicant No.3 only till her majority, despite the settled law that the Family Court has jurisdiction to grant maintenance to major daughters as well. The respondent failed to make a fair and truthful disclosure of his income before the learned Family Court, which fact has been ignored while passing the impugned order. Despite specific pleadings and evidence regarding cruelty, the learned Family Court failed to rely upon the same and has acted contrary to law and the material available on record. The learned Family Court wrongly held that applicant No.1 approached the Court after seven years of separation, ignoring the specific pleadings that earlier she was somehow managing, but due to deteriorating and vulnerable circumstances, she was compelled to seek maintenance later. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 6 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants. The Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to Applicant No. 3, while the application for grant of maintenance on behalf of Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 was rejected on the ground that Applicant No. 1 failed to establish her case as alleged and Applicant No. 2 had attained majority. The Court also considered the income, social and economic status of both parties, as well as the prevailing price index, and the award cannot be said to be on the lower side. 11. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. However, it is made clear that, as an interim measure, the maintenance granted to applicant No. 1 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.10.2024 shall not be recovered. Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice Abhishek