1 2025:CGHC:38887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 391 of 2023 1 - Lavkesh Shivhare @ Lucky S/o Rajaram Shivhare, Aged About 39 Years Occupation (Business-Woner Of One Bite Restaurant/ Hotel And Whole And Retail Seller Betel Leaves), R/o Ward No. 11kutcherypara (Behind Manas Bhawan), Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mukesh Shivhare @ Monty, S/o Rajaram Shivhare, Aged About 36 Years Occupation- Business (Businessman Of Betel And Gutkha, Ghadi Chowk, Baikunthpur) R/o Ward No. 11kutcherypara (Behind Manas Bhawan), Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Rajaram Shivhare S/o Late Ghasiram Shivhare, Aged About 65 Years R/ o-Ward No. 11, Kutcherypara, (Behind Manas Bhawan), Police Station Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Jyoti Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Jyoti Dubey, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and the impugned order dated 26/09/2022 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baikunthpur Camp, Korea, District - Korea (C.G.) in the Misc. Criminal Case No. 50/2021 (Rajaram Shivhare Vs. Lavkesh Shivhare @ Lucky & another) may kindly be set-aside of the maintenance amount against the applicants, in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble court be further pleased to pass any other order or relief in favour of the present applicants as it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of Justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants and the respondent are governed by Hindu Law; the respondent is the father of the applicants, and all parties have been residing together at the stated address along with the respondent’s wife (mother of the applicants). The respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Baikunthpur Camp, Korea (C.G.), seeking maintenance of Rs.35,000/- per month, alleging that despite jointly residing in the same house, the applicants had taken possession of 3 his shop and house constructed from his earnings, were ill-treating, abusing, and assaulting him, and had failed to maintain him though he was physically weak and without any income. The applicants, while admitting the relationship, filed a joint reply denying allegations of cruelty, dispossession, or neglect and asserting that the respondent owns sufficient property and resides with them, thereby disentitling him to claim maintenance. Upon consideration of pleadings and evidence, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 26.09.2022 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 50/2021, allowed the respondent’s application and awarded him maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month (Rs.7,000/- from applicant No. 1 and Rs.5,000/- from applicant No. 2). Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the facts and law, having been rendered without proper appreciation of the material on record. The Family Court erred in awarding maintenance of Rs.12,000/- (Rs.7,000/- from applicant No. 1 and Rs.5,000/- from applicant No. 2) to the respondent, despite clear evidence that the respondent himself owns substantial agricultural land and other properties, derives benefit from government schemes, and continues to reside jointly with the applicants in the same house. The Court failed to consider that serious disputes exist between the respondent and his wife, who has also initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act 4 against him. The findings are based on erroneous presumptions and inferences, ignoring relevant documents, statements, and revenue records (Annexure A-2 collectively) that demonstrate the respondent’s financial capacity and negate his entitlement to maintenance. The order, therefore, suffers from gross illegality and non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baikunthpur Camp, Korea, District – Korea (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rightly concluded that the respondent, being the father of the applicants and admittedly residing with them, was entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as the applicants failed to discharge their statutory obligation to maintain him despite his physical weakness, lack of independent income, and dependence on them for sustenance. The Court, while appreciating the materials on record and balancing the needs of the respondent with the financial capacity of the applicants, justly awarded maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month (Rs.7,000/- from applicant No. 1 and Rs.5,000/- from applicant No. 2). The impugned order dated 26.09.2022 is based on proper appreciation of facts 5 and law, free from perversity or illegality, and calls for no interference. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan