Gorakhnath Yadav v. Ku. Priya

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha Order on Board , Chief Justice RAJSHEKHAR SONI RAJSHEKHAR SONI

15.05.2026

1. Heard Dr. Prachi Diwan, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated

13.02.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 182/2025, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 146 of the BNSS filed by the applicant for cancellation of maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month for the respondent.

3. The facts, in brief, is that the present revision arises out of proceedings relating to grant/enhancement of maintenance between the parties. The respondent had earlier been awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month by order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the learned Family Court. Thereafter, on an application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C., the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- per month vide order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, 2 Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.), a copy of which is annexed as Annexure P/2. Subsequently, the respondent again sought enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 15,000/- per month from Rs. 2,500/- per month before the learned Family Court. The petitioner filed his objection stating inter alia that he has dependent family members including his parents, that the respondent is not his legally wedded wife, and that the earlier maintenance claim of the respondent’s mother was dismissed in M.Cr.C. No. 20/2007 on 15.11.2010. It was further contended that in Civil Case No. 17-A/2016 it was not proved that the respondent’s mother was his legally wedded wife, and that the respondent, being major aged about 20 years, is capable of maintaining herself as her mother possesses sufficient agricultural land and income. The respondent, in her reply, denied the said contentions and submitted that the petitioner is liable to maintain her and that earlier orders were not challenged. After considering the submissions of both parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 13.02.2026, rejected the application filed by the petitioner, which has led to the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed material illegality in passing the impugned order by failing to properly appreciate the facts, evidence and legal grounds raised by the petitioner and has erroneously rejected the application filed by him. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has not considered the specific contention that the respondent is an illegitimate child and that her mother is independently having agricultural land and other sources of income sufficient for her 3 maintenance. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that earlier also the respondent along with her mother had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on the ground that the relationship of husband-wife and father-daughter was not established, and the revision against the said order was also dismissed by this Hon’ble High Court, however liberty was granted to approach the civil court for declaration.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the said proceedings, a categorical finding was recorded that Ku. Priya is an illegitimate child of the petitioner, and the same has not been properly appreciated by the learned Family Court. Learned counsel further submits that after the earlier proceedings, maintenance was already awarded to the respondent vide order dated 08.11.2016 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Rs. 2,000/- per month and thereafter enhanced to Rs. 2,500/- vide order dated 07.06.2019 under Section 127 Cr.P.C., and once the earlier application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was rejected, subsequent repeated proceedings were not maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent had attained majority at the time of passing of the impugned order and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhilasha vs. Prakash & Others (2021) 13 SCC 99, a major unmarried daughter may claim maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and therefore the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were not properly maintainable in the present form. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court failed to consider that 4 the petitioner has his own family consisting of his wife, four children and dependent parents, and that the respondent’s mother also has sufficient income and agricultural land to maintain herself and the respondent. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order dated 13.02.2026 after due appreciation of the entire evidence and previous orders passed between the parties. It is evident that the respondent has been continuously granted maintenance by the learned Family Court, initially at Rs. 2,000/- per month vide order dated 08.11.2016 and thereafter enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- per month vide order dated 15.12.2023 under Section 127 Cr.P.C., and the present application was again filed seeking further enhancement. The objections raised by the petitioner regarding dependency of his family members, status of the respondent, and alleged income of the respondent’s mother have been duly considered by the learned Family Court and found to be not sufficient to disentitle the respondent from maintenance. The learned Family Court has also taken into account the overall financial status and legal obligations of the petitioner and has recorded findings based on the material available on record.

9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by 5 the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

11. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar