1 2026:CGHC:926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 121 of 2023 Radheshyam S/o Malikram Suryavanshi Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Taga, At Present R/o Rajur Colliery, Tahsil Wani, District : Yavatmal, Maharashtra. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Subhadra W/o Late Dinesh Kumar Suryavanshi Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Taga, At Present R/o Putpura, Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Vanshika D/o Late Dinesh Kumar Suryavanshi Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Subhadra Suryavanshi, R/o Village- Taga, At Present R/o Putpura, Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Chandra Prakash Lahrey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 6led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the learned family RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Court Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh, in C. M.J.C. no. 14/2018, or granting maintenance amount of Rs. 2500/- may be reduced, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents 6led an application under Sections 19 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act before the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month each from the applicant. It is an admitted position that the applicant is the father-in-law of respondent No.1 and grandfather of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 was married to Dinesh on 01.05.2004 at Village Putpura, Tahsil Janjgir, according to Hindu customs, and out of the said wedlock respondent No.2 was born on 23.10.2008. The husband of respondent No.1, namely Dinesh, died in a road accident on 05.05.2009 in Maharashtra. The respondents alleged that thereafter they were harassed and driven out from the matrimonial home and that they have no independent source of income, while claiming that the applicant owns agricultural land and has su;cient earnings. The applicant 6led his reply denying all the allegations and disputing the claims regarding income and means. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month in favour of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, which according to the applicant su>ers from non-appreciation of evidence and material on record, the present revision has been preferred. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents placed on record, as the learned Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence while granting interim maintenance in favour of the respondents. It is contended that the learned Court below failed to consider the actual material available on record and overlooked the fact that respondent No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home within a few days of the death of her husband, without any su;cient or justi6able reason, and has since been residing at her parental home without making any e>ort to return. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.1 is a well-educated lady and is gainfully employed as a Sahayika under the Integrated Child Development Project, Janjgir–Nawagarh-02, and is capable of maintaining herself as well as respondent No.2 from her own income. It is also submitted that no documentary evidence regarding the alleged income of the applicant was produced by respondent No.1, and the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant, being merely the father-in-law of respondent No.1 and grandfather of respondent No.2, has never subjected the respondents to cruelty and is himself burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents, who are wholly dependent upon him. Learned counsel asserts that respondent No.1, despite being 6nancially independent and in a better economic position than the applicant, has instituted the proceedings only to harass the applicant. Hence, the impugned order su>ers 4 from serious in6rmities and is liable to be set aside. 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, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, after due consideration of the pleadings of both the parties, the material placed on record, and the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, has rightly passed the impugned order. The learned Court has taken note of the admitted relationship between the parties, the death of the husband of respondent No.1, and the consequent obligation of the applicant as father-in-law and grandfather to maintain the dependents. After assessing the allegations regarding harassment, the absence of any independent source of livelihood of the respondents, and the rival claims concerning the income and means of the applicant, the learned Family Court exercised its judicial discretion in partly allowing the application and awarding a reasonable and modest maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month. The impugned order is a reasoned, well-considered order, passed in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 6nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in6rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certi6ed copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan