1 2025:CGHC:34610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 467 of 2023 Gulabrai Motwani S/o Shri Fattandas Motwani Aged About 26 Years Occupation Business, R/o Clubpara, Ward No. 26, Mahasamund, P.S., Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Fattandas Motwani S/o Late Shobhraj Motwani Aged About 75 Years R/o Shriram Talkies, Mahasamund, P.S. Tahsil and District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Ganga Motwani W/o Shri Fattandas Motwani Aged About 72 Years R/o Shriram Talkies, Mahasamund, P.S. Tahsil and District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. RishiKant Mohobia, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.70/2022, whereby the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been allowed with direction to the applicant to pay amount of PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.22 19:19:18 +0530 2 Rs. 2,000-2,000/- total (4,000/-) per month to the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant's parents filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from their son, the applicant. The applicant's parents had previously filed a similar application in 2014, which was later compromised and disposed of. The current application alleges that the applicant is running a shoe business and earning a significant income, while his parents are old and without any source of income. The parents had filed a maintenance application in 2014, which was compromised. The applicant's father gifted property to his elder son and daughter-in-law, which the applicant challenged in court. Business and Income: The applicant runs a shoe business on rented premises and has loan obligations. The Family Court directed the applicant to pay Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance to his parents. The applicant claims he is not obligated to maintain his parents as they are being taken care of by his elder brother and sister-in-law. The property was gifted to the elder son and daughter-in-law, who are supposed to take care of the parents. The applicant alleges that the maintenance application is filed to harass him. The Court must consider the applicant's income, his parents' needs, and his obligation to maintain them. The applicant's business and income, as well as his parents' financial situation, are crucial in determining maintenance. The Court must consider the family dynamics and the reasons behind the parents' decision to seek maintenance from the applicant. Only in order to harass the applicant herein, the application under Section 125 of the CRPC has been filed because, the applicant herein has filed civil suit against his father and Bharti Motwani. There is no other reason to file the said application by the parents. Earlier proceedings of 125 CRPC., Mukesh Motwani. who is elder son of respondent No. 1 has not performed his 3 obligation properly and he was declared ex-parte in the said proceedings. It is the obligation of both sons to maintain his parents however, the elder son is not performing his part. In turn, he got registered gift deed by his father and not taking care of his parents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that when the civil suit was filed by the applicant herein against his father and Bharti Motwani, they have filed application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court should have considered this fact in order to harass the applicant herein, application has been filed by the parents. Further, learned Family Court should have considered this fact earlier, father and mother of the applicant herein have filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against both sons however, it was compromised. He has not filed application against his elder son because he is residing alongwith him. The learned Family Court erred in law while holding that since the parents are residing alongwith his elder son, namely, Mukesh Motwani therefore, there is no responsibility of him to maintain his parents. There is no evidence on record to show that the parents are not being maintained and they require any amount towards their maintenance. The learned Family Court ought to have considered this fact that, prime facie it has not been established that the applicant herein is having income of Rs. 30,000/- however, there is responsibility upon the applicant to maintain his family and his sons are perusing study. In the earlier round of litigation, father has filed an application for grant of maintenance against both sons, however, thereafter, filed only against one son, the applicant only in order to harass him. The order impugned passed by the Family Court is based on conjecture and surmises, which is liable to be set-aside 4 by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the respondents have no source of income and hence they are unable to maintain themselves. Whereas the applicant has a shoe-slipper business and from that he earns at least fifteen to twenty thousand rupees per month, hence it is proved that the applicant is a person with sufficient means and the statement made by the respondent Fattan Das that the applicant does not maintain respondent has not been refuted by cross-examination, hence it is proved that the applicant is being negligent in maintaining the respondents. Whereas it is the legal, moral and social responsibility of the applicant to maintain his aged parents. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is partially accepted. 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