1 CGHC010216912025 2026:CGHC:36277 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 751 of 2025 1. Shrimati Mithlesh Rajwade W/o Shri Govind Prasad Rajwade D/o Surendra Kumar Rajwade Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Udaipur (Behined Government Hospital) P.S. And Tahsil Udaipur District - Surguja (C.G.) (Detail As Per The Order Dated 05-05-2025) 2. Kumari Shailja Shri D/o Shri Govind Prasad Rajwade Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Udaipur (Behined Government Hospital) P.S. And Tahsil Udaipur District - Surguja (C.G.) (Detail As Per The Order Dated 05-05-2025) 3. Shivansh Vinayak S/o Shri Govind Prasad Rajwade Aged About 14 Years Minor By Gaurdian Mother Shrimati Mithlesh Rajwade R/o Village Udaipur (Behined Government Hospital) P.S. And Tahsil Udaipur District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Govind Prasad Rajwade S/o Tulsi Rajwade Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kharsura Post Karanji P.S. Jainagar Tahsil Surajpur District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. Despite service of notice upon the respondent, none has appeared on his behalf to contest the matter, particularly with regard to the claim for ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.14 18:53:50 +0530 2 maintenance of applicant No.2, namely, Kumari Shailja Shri, daughter of the respondent, today when the matter is taken up for hearing and the notice to respondent is deemed su>cient now the Court proceeds to hear the revision petition. 2. This Court by order dated 24.06.2025 passed the following order: “Mr. Hari Om Rai, learned counsel for the applicants. None for the Respondent. The applicant No.1/wife has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Family Court Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.179/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC with regard to the applicant No.1/wife and applicant No.2/daughter and allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.2/son. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No. 01 and respondent herein solemnized the marriage with each other on 26/04/2001 and with their wedlock two children were born applicant Nos. 02 and 3 herein, and both the children were live with her mother/respondent No. 01, the illicit relationship with the unknown person and with that issue various time make an abuse with the character and dignity of the applicant No. 01 in a social platform and initially the respondent was paying the expenses but right now he is not giving the single penny for the study of the respondent No. 02 and from the year 2022 they are maintaining themselves with the help of the maternal parents of the respondent No. 01 in a compulsion and in a study of the children the total budget will be 40,000/- but the father of the respondent Nos. 02 and 03 are not maintaining themselves which is also very inhuman, in spite of the respondent is earning 1,50,000/-2,00,000/-per months 3 and by submitting the aforementioned pleading by way of filing an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. the applicants prayed for maintenance of rupees 40,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the applicant No.1/wife submits that the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant No. 1/wife for grant of maintenance to her as well as for applicant Nos. 2 and 3 who are the daughter and son of the applicant No. 1 and respondent and the Family Court has rejected the application for maintenance for applicant No. 1 and 2 whereas for applicant No. 3, Rs. 5,000/- per month has been granted. It is stated that on the ground of adultery of applicant No. 1, application for maintenance was rejected, so far as applicant No. 2 is concerned, it is stated that she is being only a major girl/daughter of the applicant No. 1 and respondent, she is not entitled for maintenance. It is stated that she is an unmarried girl and she has no source of income, hence maintenance ought to have been granted by the Family Court to applicant No.2/daughter. The learned Trial Court has not found entitle the applicant No.2/daughter to take the maintenance from his father on the ground that she has attained the age of majority and as per provision of 125 of Cr.P.C. which is contrary to the settled principal by the Apex Court in case of Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata [(2002) 5 SCC 422] exactly, as in our case, it was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the daughter having attained the age of majority and as it has not been established that she is suffering out of any physical disability or injury, she is not entitled to maintenance from her father. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticing the phraseology employed in Section 125 Cr.P.C. encountered a difficult situation. However, in its zeal to advance the scheme of social justice incorporated in Section 125 Cr.P.C. and to protect a daughter, who has attained the age of majority, but 4 who does not suffer any physical disability, the Hon'ble Supreme Court called in aid Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and held that although in view of the rider attached to a daughter, who attained majority, she may not be eligible for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., yet she is eligible for maintenance under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act from her father and thus maintained the maintenance order passed in her favour under Section 125 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant No.1/wife has admitted in her cross- examination that her daughter/applicant No.2 is studying forensic science in Jaipur and her expenses are being borne by her father. Applicant No.3 Shivansh Vinayak has admitted in his cross-examination that in the year 2022, he was studying in class 10th in Oriental Public School and after that his father got him admitted in class 11th in Visakhapatnam. From the statements of the applicant No.1 and son Shivansh Vinayak, it is itself proved that the respondent did not fight and beat the applicants and throw them out of the house, rather applicant No. 1 herself abandoned the respondent and went to her maternal home without sufficient cause, because if the respondent had beaten and thrown the applicants out of the house, it cannot be expected that after throwing applicant No. 2 and applicant No. 3 out of the house, he would have got them admitted in good schools for giving them good education and would have borne all the expenses. In such a situation, it cannot be considered, as proved that applicant No. 1 has sufficient reason to live separately from the respondent. Thus, looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the present revision filed by applicant No.1 - Shrimati Mithlesh Rajwade for grant 5 of maintenance is hereby rejected and the prayer made for enhancement of maintenance amount to applicant No.3- Shivansh Vinayak is also hereby rejected. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed with respect to applicant No.1 - Shrimati Mithlesh Rajwade and applicant No.3 - Shivansh Vinayak. So far as applicant No.2 - Kumari Shailja Shri is concerned, who is daughter of the respondent, issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee, as per rules, returnable within four weeks, and thereafter, list this case.” 3. Heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. 4. From a perusal of the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by this Court, it transpires that this Court a>rmed the order passed by the learned concerned Family Court in respect of applicants No.1 and 3 and issued notice to the respondent with regard to the claim of applicant No.2, namely, Kumari Shailja Shri, daughter of the respondent, for grant of maintenance. 5. It is not in dispute that though applicant No.2 has attained the majority, she is not gainfully employed. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is working as a Lecturer at Government Higher Secondary School, Latori, Surajpur, and is receiving a substantial salary. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent is under an obligation to maintain applicant No.2. 6. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance to applicant No.2, on or before the 1st day of every calendar month starting from September 2026, until she gets married or gains employment, whichever is earlier from the date of passing of this order. 6 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 8. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit the certiCed copy of this order alongwith original record to the concerned Family Court within forthwith for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek