1 2026:CGHC:25549-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 198 of 2026 1 - Santosh Kumar Bareth S/o Hulas Ram Bareth Aged About 47 Years R/o Sarkho- Village, Tahsil And District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kajal Bareth D/o Santosh Bareth Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Sarkho, Tahsil And District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 2 - Kanchan Bareth D/o Santosh Bareth Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Sarkho, Tahsil And District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (Plaintiff) ---- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Adarsh Tiwari, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order On Board (19.06.2026) Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Heard on admission. 1. Appellant/non-applicant has filed this appeal questioning the legality and sustainability of the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), passed in Civil MJC No. 31/2025, whereby the Principal Judge, BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, has partly allowed the application filed under Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adaption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (In short ‘HAMA’) granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (Rs.1,500/- - 1,500/- each) to the respondents/applicants). 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this present appeal are that an application U/s. 20 (3) of HAMA was filed by the applicants/daughters seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- from their father, appellant/non- applicant before the Family Court, Janjgir, pleading therein that after coming into contact with another woman, appellant deserted respondents, their mother, and his family, and started living separately with the said woman. As a result, the respondents have been deprived of their father's love and affection and are residing with their mother. Respondent has not made any arrangement for their care and maintenance. At present, they are pursuing higher studies, while their mother has become physically weak and is suffering from illness. Their mother works as a labourer and is hardly able to meet their livelihood and educational expenses. Due to her illness , she is now unable to work regularly. The non-applicant is employed as an Operator in the Labour Department and earns Rs. 40,000/- per month. He also owns agricultural land from which he derives additional income. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. 3. Non-applicant filed reply to the application denying the pleading made therein. It was pleaded that the applicants and their mother refused to acknowledge him as their father and husband, deserted him, and even declared him dead before the villagers. It was further pleaded that, in 3 compliance of the orders of the Court, he paid maintenance of ₹3,000 per month to the applicants until they attained majority. It was further pleaded that applicant No.1 works in private company at Bilaspur and earns Rs.12,000/- per month. Applicant No.2 is teacher in private school at Bilaspur and also getting income of Rs.6000/- per month. He works as labour and hardly earns Rs.7,000/- per month. He has 90 years old father, who is ill. He spends Rs.3000/- on his father and his medicine. It is pleaded that applicants and their mother threw the non- applicant and his aged father out of the house, and they have been residing separately for last 23 years and he is residing in the village in a rented accommodation. Applicants have filed this application in order harass to the non-applicant. He prays for dismissal of the application filed by the applicants. 4. Learned trial Court based on the pleadings made by respective parties have formulated as many as two issues for consideration and upon considering the evidence brought in record by the respective parties, held that since the respondents/applicants are daughters of appellant/non-applicant, are unable to maintain themselves, therefore, they are entitled to get maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500/- - Rs.1,500/- per month each from the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by said order, instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/non-applicant. 5. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that impugned order passed by learned Family Court is bad in law and is passed without considering the documentary and oral evidence brought on record in appropriate manner. Learned Family Court failed to examine the evidence brought on record in its true perspective. Learned counsel for 4 the appellant has primarily assailed the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court. It is submitted that the appellant is a labourer by occupation and earns only about Rs. 7,000/- per month. It is further contended that the appellant has the responsibility of maintaining his aged father, who is about 90 years old and suffering from various ailments. According to the appellant, a substantial portion of his income is spent on the medical treatment and day-to-day care of his father, from his limited financial resources. The respondents/applicants are major, educated girl working in private institutions and are capable of maintaining themselves independently. It is argued that amount of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court is excessive and disproportionate to the appellant's actual earning capacity and financial liabilities. 6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned order. 7. Perusal of the impugned order would show that relationship between appellant/non-applicant and respondents/applicants, being that of a father and daughters, is not in dispute. It is the case of respondents/applicant that they are unable to maintain themselves and needs financial support from their father/appellant. 8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer the provisions under Section 3(b) of the HAMA, which reads as under :- “3. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (a) XXX 5 (b) “Maintenance” includes - (i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment; (ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage;” 9. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that clause (ii) of the definition of “maintenance” under Section 3(b) of the Act of 1956 is inclusive and an unmarried daughter’s expenses for marriage are included. In the case of an unmarried daughter, ‘maintenance’ includes reasonable expenses of and incidental to her marriage. 10. Section 20 of the HAMA provides for maintenance of children and aged parents. Clause (3) of Section 20 states as under :- “20. Maintenance of children and aged parents. - (1) x x x (2) x x x (3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property.” 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Abhilasha v. Parkash, (2021) 13 SCC 99, while considering the scope of Section 20 (3) of the HAMA for grant of maintenance to unmarried daughters has held that Section 20 of the HAMA casts a statutory obligation on a Hindu to maintain his 6 daughter who is unmarried and unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under :- “32. The provision of Section 20 of the 1956 Act casts clear statutory obligation on a Hindu to maintain his unmarried daughter who is unable to maintain herself. The right of unmarried daughter under Section 20 to claim maintenance from her father when she is unable to maintain herself is absolute and the right given to unmarried daughter under Section 20 is rightly granted under Personal law, which can very well be enforced by her against her father. The judgment of this Court in Jagdish Jugtawat [Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, (2002) 5 SCC 422 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1147] laid down that Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act recognised the right of a minor girl to claim maintenance after she attains majority till her marriage from her father. Unmarried daughter is clearly entitled for maintenance from her father till she is married even though she has become major, which is a statutory right recognised by Section 20(3) and can be enforced by unmarried daughter in accordance with law.” 12. Reverting back to facts of the case at hand in light of the aforesaid legal principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Abhilasha (supra), it is clear that though the respondents/applicants are a major girl of 22 and 20 aged years respectively, but by virtue of Section 3(b)(ii) read with Section 20(3) of the Act of 1956, they, being unmarried daughters, are clearly entitled for maintenance from her father appellant/non-applicant till they are married or unable to maintain herself. Appellant, being the father of respondents, has a moral and legal responsibility and obligation to maintain his daughters, who are unmarried, even though they have attained the age of 7 majority. He cannot deny to pay the maintenance on any ground whatsoever. 13. So far as the contention raised by appellant that amount of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court is excessive having regard to his income and present liabilities is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondents/applicants have failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding exact income of their father. However, in absence of such evidence, it can be reasonably presumed that appellant would be earning at least in accordance with the minimum wages prevailing in the area. Perusal of the impugned order also shows that the appellant has failed to substantiate his plea that the applicants are earning and are capable of maintaining themselves and only oral submission was made. The Family Court has awarded only ₹1,500/- each to the respondents/applicants towards maintenance, which cannot be said to be excessive, considering the prevailing price index and the present standard of living. 14. One of the consideration as envisages U/s. 23 of the HAMA is the reasonable wants of the claimant. Awarding Rs.1,500/- to one daughter, appears to this Court that the Family Court has considered the reasonableness and just amount towards maintenance to the respondents aged about 22 and 20 years. Major girls child normally needs more amount to maintain themselves. 15. For the foregoing discussions and in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the finding arrived at by learned Family Court allowing the application U/s. 20 (3) of HAMA awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (Rs.1,500/- - Rs.1,500/- to each 8 of applicants) is based on proper appreciation of the facts and law and it does not call for any interference. 16. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed at admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Balram