1 2025:CGHC:14525 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 395 of 2025 Amit Jaiswal S/o Late Basudev Jaiswal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And P.S. Tapkara, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Kalawati Devi W/o Late Basudev Jaiswal Aged About 66 Years R/o Village And P.S. Tapkara, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 26/03/2025 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Camp Family Court, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.14/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has granted maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. Brief facts of this case is that the respondent have filed an application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. for seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month against the applicant and it is stated that the respondent is mother of the 2 applicant and after marriage of the applicant, daughter-in-law of the respondent namely Rinki was harassing and torturing without any reason and used to filthy language with the respondent and also threatened not giving the money to her by committing marpeet, and hence the respondent is residing separately. Respondent has no any source of income to survival and his son applicant is working as Lecturer and his wife is working as Teacher in the Kunkuri and on account of his work, they obtained amount of Rs.65,000/- and 35,000/- per month income and hence, the respondent had filed an application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. for granting maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month against the applicant. 3. Issuing the notice to the applicant, the applicant has filed reply and denied the all averment pleaded in the application and hence the applicant has not able to pay any maintenance and liable to be set-aside. 4. On the basis of the pleading of the parties and documents available on record, affidavit given by the parties, the learned Family Court decided the interim application, thereby Rs.2,000/-per month granted as interim maintenance for the respondent by impugned order dated 30.01.2025. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. He further contended that he applicant has received grievous injuries on road accident and he has paid Rs.30,088/- per month as loan amount, paid Rs. 5,991/- and Rs. 6,000/- per month as LIC premium and paid amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month for Sukanya Yojna by 3 deducting of his salary amount of Rs. 49,079/- and like this the applicant has remained only rest amount of Rs.5,000/- per month and his whole family members have totally dependent upon his income and hence the applicant has not able to pay any maintenance amount to the respondent. He further contended that at present the respondent is running a grocery shop at her house and has also having agricultural land recorded in the name of her husband and no any partition of the land has been done in the family members and hence the respondent has managed herself for survival. It is further contended that the respondent has given her statement and it has admitted that she is having four wheeler vehicle as per para no. 6 and have 4 children including the present applicant and after having old aged, her 4 children would be responsible persons to take care of respondent as per para 7 of the statement and hence the respondent is not entitled to get any maintenance amount from applicant. Looking to the entire material fact and law, the order passed by the learned Family Court is in arbitrary manner and is liable to be quashed. It is therefore, that this Court may be allowed criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated 30.01.2025 or the matter may be remanded back to give opportunity to file appropriate application to implead applicant's brother (children of the respondent) as parties for proper adjudication of the case, in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into 4 consideration, the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent-mother. 8. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that the respondent is mother of the applicant and she has no high source of income, she is residing separately from her son and daughter-in-law and she is struggling to support herself. In considered opinion of this Court that this revision is an example of the neglect of elderly parents and it is both a moral and legal obligation for children to care for their ageing parents. It is undisputed relation between the applicant and his mother and calling the challenge to the maintenance order an ‘abuse process of law.’ It is also observed that the maintenance amount is modest, making it surprising that the son contested it. Therefore, the Family Court granted the interim maintenance to the respondent under Section 144 of BNSS is hereby affirmed. Applicant has to pay the said interim maintenance amount to his mother-respondent. It is directed that the applicant shall pay the interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent-mother as order by the Family Court. 9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.04.02 12:14:11 +0530