1 2026:CGHC:20183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 592 of 2026 1 - Smt. Radhika Devi W/o Basant Mahto Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village Gamhariya, Tehsil- Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Dipti Prajapati D/o Basant Mahto Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Radhika Devi, Resident Of Village Gamhariya, Tehsil- Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Awnish Kumar Mahto S/o Basant Mahto Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Radhika Devi, Resident Of Village Gamhariya, Tehsil- Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Basant Mahto S/o Lodhi Ram Mahto Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village- Amgaon, Police Station- Jaari, District- Gumla (Jharkhand) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Ms. K. Radhika, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.04.2026 1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, challenging the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) in MCC No. 25/2025, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 whereby the learned Family Court has awarded maintenance to applicant No.2 to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application till her marriage, while rejecting the claim of applicant No.3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that and it is pertinent to note that applicant No.1 has not claimed any maintenance for herself. It has been averred in the application filed on behalf of the applicants that applicant No.1 was married to the non-applicant on 01.07.2014 in accordance with social and religious customs. After the marriage, applicant No.1 went to reside with her husband at Village Amgaon, Police Station Jari, District Gumla (Jharkhand). However, since applicant No.1 is employed as an attendant in the Veterinary Hospital at Jashpur, she returned to her place of posting at Jashpur. After marriage, she used to visit her matrimonial home during holidays and the non-applicant also used to come to Gamhariya, Jashpur, to reside with the applicants. Out of the wedlock, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were born. It is further alleged that since the year 2022, the non-applicant developed an illicit relationship with another woman and abandoned the applicants and is presently residing with the said woman. The non-applicant has stopped maintaining applicant Nos. 2 and 3 and is not providing any financial assistance for their day-to-day needs. It is stated that the non-applicant is financially well-off and owns a tractor and approximately 3 acres of fertile agricultural land, from which he earns about Rs.10 lakhs annually by cultivating various crops. Due to this, applicant No.1 is 3 facing great difficulty in meeting the expenses of maintenance, education and other needs of applicant Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, it has been prayed that a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month be awarded towards maintenance for applicant Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, the applicants have filed the present application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of monthly maintenance from the non-applicant, who is the father of applicant Nos. 2 and 3 before the Family Court concerned. 3. In response, the non-applicant has denied the averments made in the application and has stated that after marriage, applicant No.1 used to reside at her place of posting on the pretext of her job and would visit her parental home at Gamhariya during holidays instead of going to her matrimonial home. It is stated that the non-applicant himself used to visit Gamhariya to stay with applicant No.1. The parents of the non-applicant are old and ailing and therefore it was difficult for him to leave them and reside with applicant No.1. However, applicant No.1 was not willing to stay at her matrimonial home. It is further contended that applicant No.1 did not maintain proper relations with her matrimonial home since the beginning and since the year 2020, she has deserted the non-applicant and has been living with another person with whom she has developed an illicit relationship. It is also alleged that applicant No.1 used to send messages to the non-applicant on his mobile phone, including in May 2023 and other occasions, expressing her intentions. It is further alleged that applicant No.1 had an illicit relationship with one Vivek Bhagat of her parental village Gamhariya, and that her 4 second child, namely Avnish Kumar Mahto, was born from the said relationship. It is also stated that applicant No.1 had initiated legal proceedings against Vivek Bhagat, which were adjudicated by the Court. According to the non-applicant, the marriage with applicant No.1 was merely a formality, as she never intended to live a matrimonial life with him and instead wished to reside with Vivek Bhagat, however, when he refused to keep her, she lodged a criminal case against him. It has also been contended by the non- applicant that his financial and family condition is not sound, due to which applicant No.1 never stayed at the matrimonial home. His parents are ill and his father is a patient of tuberculosis. In such circumstances, due to the heavy workload at home, applicant No.1 used to say that she is employed and does not come to her matrimonial home to do household work during her short visits. After some initial visits following marriage, she never stayed at her matrimonial home. It is further stated that the non-applicant always used to provide financial assistance to applicant No.1 to the best of his capacity and also extended financial and physical support in the construction of a house at Gamhariya. On 05.11.2023, a social meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the President of the Kumhar community regarding the dispute between the parties, wherein a decision was taken and recorded in writing and applicant No.1 was also found to be at fault. The non-applicant has further stated that the tractor owned by him has been purchased on loan, which he is repaying. He does not own any agricultural land and from the ancestral property, his father has received only about 70– 5 80 decimals of land, which is not cultivable. The applicants have made false statements regarding his income without any documentary evidence. There are several other tractors in the village, due to which his tractor often remains unused. The non- applicant has to work as a labourer to maintain himself and his parents. It is also stated that applicant No.1 is a government employee, which she herself has admitted in her application, and she earns approximately Rs.45,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month. Therefore, she is capable of maintaining herself and her children. It is contended that this is the reason why she does not wish to reside with the non-applicant and his aged parents, despite the fact that the non-applicant is always willing and even now ready, to keep the applicants with him. Hence, it is prayed that in light of the aforesaid submissions, the application filed by the applicants be dismissed with costs. 4. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 11.02.2026, whereby the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance to applicant No.2, i.e., the daughter, namely Dipti Prajapati, from the date of filing of the application. However, the claim of applicant No.3/son was dismissed on the ground that he is an illegitimate child. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse, illegal and contrary 6 to the evidence available on record and, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and has, in fact, exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. It is further submitted that, without proper appreciation of the material facts and evidence on record, the learned Family Court has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2 and has erroneously dismissed the claim of applicant No.3. It is argued that the amount of Rs.2,000/- per month is grossly inadequate in the present time to meet the expenses of education, nutrition, and medical needs of a growing child and the learned Court has failed to consider the rising cost of living. It is also contended that the dismissal of the claim of applicant No.3 (Avanish Kumar) solely on the basis of a police report (Ex. D-01) is legally unsustainable, as the non-applicant and applicant No.1 were admittedly married on 01.07.2014, and under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (corresponding to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act), there is a strong presumption of legitimacy of a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, which could not have been rebutted in the absence of any cogent evidence of non-access by the non-applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the non-applicant, in his cross- examination, has admitted owning and operating a tractor for commercial/agricultural purposes, which clearly indicates sufficient income-generating capacity, much higher than what has been assessed by the learned Family Court. It is also submitted that merely because applicant No.1 is a government employee, earning 7 approximately Rs.45,000–50,000/- per month, the same does not absolve the non-applicant of his statutory and moral obligation to maintain his children, particularly when he himself has admitted that he has not provided any financial support since 2023. It is further argued that the evidence and documents produced on behalf of the applicants have been misread and improperly appreciated and that the non-applicant possesses sufficient means to provide maintenance, thereby entitling the applicants to adequate maintenance. It is contended that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and has not been passed in the proper administration of justice, and that Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. is a beneficial provision intended to achieve the social objective of preventing destitution, and thus the Court is duty-bound to award just and reasonable maintenance to the applicants. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the learned Family Court concerned, it transpires that the learned Court has meticulously appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and has recorded well-reasoned findings. The learned Family Court has taken into consideration the defence raised by the non-applicant with regard to the paternity of applicant No.3 and upon due consideration of the document Ex. D-01, being the report lodged by applicant No.1 herself against one Vivek Bhagat, along with her admission in cross-examination, has arrived 8 at a categorical finding that applicant No.3, namely Avanish Kumar, was not born out of the wedlock between applicant No.1 and the non-applicant. Consequently, the claim of applicant No.3 for maintenance has rightly been rejected. The learned Family Court has further recorded that it is not in dispute that applicant No.2, namely Dipti Prajapati, is the daughter born out of the wedlock between applicant No.1 and the non-applicant. It has also been duly considered that the non-applicant is engaged in labour as well as agricultural activities and possesses sufficient means and has himself admitted in his cross-examination that he has not provided any financial assistance towards the maintenance of his children since the year 2023. In such circumstances, the learned Family Court has rightly held that the non-applicant has neglected to maintain his minor daughter and accordingly, has directed the non- applicant to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance to applicant No.2 from the date of filing of the application, which is just and proper in the facts of the case. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Family Court has properly appreciated the evidence and has passed a well-reasoned and legally sustainable order. No perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 9 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. /- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal