1 2025:CGHC:29521 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 268 of 2018 1. Smt. Leelavati Gupta W/o Kishorilal Gupta Aged About 68 Years R/o- Tarbahar, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 2. Kishorilal Gupta S/o Late Chirau Prasad Gupta Aged About 73 Years R/o- Tarbahar, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., … Applicants versus 1. Vijay Gupta S/o Kishorilal Gupta Aged About 48 Years R/o- Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 2. Sudhir Gupta S/o Kishorilal Gupta Aged About 43 Years R/o- Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 23.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C No.270/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 13:12:51 +0530 2 dismissed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant No. 1 and 2 are parents of the respondent No. 1 and 2. The land of the applicant No. 2 is on Tarbahar Chowk Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh which is inherited by the applicant No.2 from his father and next to this land another nazul land is recorded in the name of the applicant. The land inherited by the applicant No.2 from his father is admeasuring about 24x18 square foot and the nazul land owned by the applicant No.2 is admeasuring about 12x18. On the above said land there are three shops and the respondents have taken possession over the two shops and they have also taken over the possession of the nazul land of the applicant No.2. The third shop is run by the younger son of the applicants namely Manish Gupta. The respondents are enjoying fruits of ancestor's property along with their families. The daughter of the respondent No.1 is studding in Bangalore and his son is studding in a English medium school at Bilaspur and the children of Respondent no. 2 are also studding in an English medium school in Bilaspur but the respondents are not at all dispensing their duties towards their parents rather they ill treat their parents and even beat their father and use abusive language for their parents. The property of the applicant No.2 is also in the possession of the respondents. Thereafter after hearing both the parties, the Learned Family Court, Bilaspur dismissed the applications of the applicants by one order though the applicants had filed separate applications for maintenance. Hence, this instant petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the material evidence available on record. 3 The order was passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. It is respectfully submitted that, the learned Family Court has a biased attitude towards the respondents. The learned Family Court over looked the fact that the respondents are over the possession of the ancestral property and are also in possession of the plot which is recorded in the name of the applicant No.2, that the entire property possessed by the respondents is in the name of the applicant No.2 and therefore as they are enjoying the property of the applicants they are liable to take care of the applicants and are also liable to pay monthly maintenance to the applicants. The learned Family Court over looked the fact that the applicants are getting old day by day and are in need of good medical and emotional care and are also in need of financial help. The order impugned suffers from material illegality and deserves to be set aside/quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that applicant No. 1 Smt. Lilavati Gupta and Kishori Lal Gupta on being asked during cross-examination that the respondents want to take the applicants with them from the Court with respect and provide them maintenance, have replied that they do not want to go with the respondents. The manner in which the respondents have refused or neglected to provide maintenance to the applicants is also unclear. It has not been proved that the respondents have beaten or misbehaved with the applicants and that the applicants are permanently ill and are undergoing continuous treatment and the respondents have neglected and refused to maintain the applicants has not duly proved. On the basis of which the applicants are 4 not entitled to receive maintenance. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti