1 2025:CGHC:30962 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 535 of 2019 Harekrishna Mandal S/o Shri Brajen Mandal Aged About 50 Years R/o Gurudwara Road Vishrampur Talaab Para, P. S. Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh .. Applicant(s) versus 1 - Brajen Mandal S/o Late Arjni Mandal Aged About 80 Years R/o Madanpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Jora Talaab, City Ambikapur, P. S. Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Bindu W/o Shri Ashok Vishwas Aged About 40 Years R/o Madanpur P. S. Jainagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07 .2025 . 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the non- KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure A/1), passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur District-Surguja (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the non-applicant No.1 named Brajen Mandal alleging that he is the father of the applicant and is an old aged person and is presently residing at the house of his daughter and he has got no source of income and he has been denied to be maintained by his son/applicant, who is earning about 30 to 40 thousand rupees per month from his shop and also earns from a goods vehicle therefore maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/- may be awarded to him from both his son and daughter respectively. 4. The applicant filed his reply and denied the contention made by the non-applicant No.1 and also submitted that he is a physically handicapped person and he is not having any source income and the non applicant No.1 is having source of income to maintain himself and there are other 7 sons who can maintain him and also that the non applicant No.1 has deposited Rs 10 lacks by selling land and the applicant is unable to maintain himself and is being maintained by his owns sons therefore he is not liable to maintain the non applicant No.1. 5. The learned Family Court concerned after appreciating the 3 evidence and material available on record, heard both the parties passed the order dated 23.01.2019, wherein partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant/Harekrishna to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month towards maintenance to the non-applicant No.1. From the evidence presented by both parties, it appears that the applicant and the non- applicants are father and daughter, respectively. Therefore, it is the moral responsibility of applicant to maintain the non-applicant No.1 in his old age. Non-applicant No. 02, on the other hand, is married and has moved to her in-laws’ house. She is a housewife, and her husband earns a living through daily wage labor to support their family. In such a situation, the Non-applicant No.1 cannot be granted maintenance from Non-applicant No. 02. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family court ought to have considered that the applicant was always ready and willing to live along with non-applicant No.1 but it is the non- applicant No.1 father who started living separately without any valid reason or sufficient cause and the applicant is ready to live along with the non applicant No.1. The learned Family Court committed grave error by overlooking the fact that the non-applicant No.1 is living along with his daughter and he is able to maintain himself non applicant No.1 is living without any sufficient cause and reason and he do not want to live along with the applicant on his own will and he is having his source of income which is evident from the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat. He further submits that the applicant most respectfully submits that the applicant is a Physically 4 Handicapped person having no source of income and he himself is dependent upon his own son and he is not having any such source of income as alleged by the non-applicant No.1 and further that there are 7 other sons of the non-applicant No.1 who can easily maintain him but he had only chosen the applicant just to harass him and he is not liable to give any maintenance to the non- applicant No.1. He further submits that the applicant most respectfully submits that the applicant monthly earns Rs. 500/- as he is having a very small shop of daily used products just like a Pan Shop and he is not earning as alleged by the non-applicant No.1 therefore also the awarded amount is on higher side. Thus the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹1000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant 5 factors, including the income of the applicant, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicant No.1. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the higher side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 1000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal