1 2025:CGHC:32958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 539 of 2022 Akhilesh Jagatramka S/o Shri Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka Aged About 48 Years Occupation Business , R/o Nayi Sadak, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal Jagatramka Aged About 75 Years R/o Shyam Talkies Road, Raigarh , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Pratibha Devi Jagatramka W/o Shri Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka Aged About 68 Years Occupation House Wife R/o Shyam Talkies Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3. Anant Kumar Jagatramka S/o Shri Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka Aged About 51 Years Occupation Business, R/o Herambh Industries, Shyam Talkies Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 01 and 02 : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 03. : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey learned counsel, appearing for respondent 01 and 02 as well as Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 03. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.17 10:50:53 +0530 2 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and qua the petitioner, set-aside the order dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. F-79/2017 and findings thereof and in effect the application filed by the respondent No. 01 and 2 for grant of maintenance may kindly be rejected qua the petitioner, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the the respondents No. 1 and 2, who are the father and mother of the applicant herein, had preferred an application against the applicant and respondent No. 3 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) seeking grant of maintenance. 4. By final order dated 18.08.2021, the learned Family Court, Raigarh, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application of respondents No. 1 and 2 by granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month (i.e., Rs. 5,000/- each to respondents No. 1 and 2) to be paid by the applicant herein. Additionally, the learned Court passed a similar order against respondent No. 3 herein. By way of the present petition, the applicant is impugning the part of the order to the extent of the liability imposed upon him. It is most humbly submitted that the findings arrived at by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and suffer from material 3 irregularities and wrongful appreciation of evidence. The learned Family Court arrived at a categorical finding that respondents No. 1 and 2, in addition to their substantial assets and business interests, are earning undisputed monthly interest of Rs. 8,500/- and Rs. 5,000/-, respectively, from the Post Office Senior Citizen Saving Scheme. Thus, it cannot be held that respondents No. 1 and 2 are completely without any resources or income. The Court also recorded a categorical finding that respondent No. 1 is the proprietor of M/s R.H.S. Industries and M/s Cement Product. However, despite these findings, the Court proceeded further with an erroneous conclusion that respondents No. 1 and 2 are incapable of maintaining themselves. 5. Learned Family Court also categorically held that at the time of the execution of the alleged memorandum of partition, all three sons of respondent No. 1 were minors, and further, the said memorandum was not a registered document; therefore, no finding with regard to the partition of property could arise. It has also been conclusively found by the learned Court that the applicant had left the home in the year 2017 itself, and it was respondent No. 3 who was residing with respondents No. 1 and 2 and taking care of them until the year 2020. This fact was also fortified by the learned Family Court on the strength of a gift deed executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of the minor son of respondent No. 3, whereby a large portion of land/farmhouse admeasuring 2.642 hectares situated at Village Bangursia, Kh. No. 44, and another piece of land situated at Nazul Sheet No. 43, Plot No. 188/5 admeasuring 848 sq. ft., was donated in favour of the minor son of Respondent No. 3. At this stage, it is most pertinent to submit that in view of the above findings and the evidence on record, the learned Family Court held that the contention of Respondent No. 3 that he is not liable to maintain respondents No. 1 4 and 2 has no legs to stand. The applicant submits that the learned Family Court ought not to have passed the impugned order when it was established and conclusively proved by evidence that respondent No. 1 had filed a false complaint regarding the alleged theft of goods worth Rs. 91.7 lakhs against the applicant herein and had also filed a false complaint against the wife of the applicant alleging assault, both of which complaints were found to be false by the police authorities during investigation (refer to Paras 28 and 29 of the judgment). The applicant further submits that the learned Family Court has wrongly disbelieved the income tax documents submitted by the applicant herein vide Ex. D-17 to D-20, which disclosed the total annual income of the applicant, and arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the documents were not sealed by the Income Tax Department. It is submitted that the said documents are in the nature of receipts/acknowledgments of submission of income tax returns downloaded from the website of the Income Tax Department. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, acted with material irregularities and passed the impugned judgment without application of mind. The learned Court ought to have appreciated that the instant proceedings have been initiated by the respondents with an oblique motive and solely to humiliate and harass the applicant, who was peacefully leading a separate life with his wife and children. He submits that it is settled law that no one can be permitted to abuse the process of the Court and the law to settle personal scores. The learned Family Court, without lifting the veil behind the instant proceedings and without ascertaining the true intent, has allowed the application for maintenance filed by the respondents in a mechanical manner. He further submits that learned Family Court has wrongly disbelieved the income tax reports submitted 5 by the applicant vide Ex.D-17 to D-20, which clearly show that the applicant’s total annual income is on a very modest/lower side, and from this income, he is required to maintain the expenses of his wife and children, including their education expenses. Learned Family Court has erroneously rejected the grounds raised by the applicant and has not examined the real factual scenario while passing the order, mechanically awarding the maintenance amount without assigning any reasons for how the quantum was decided. It is submitted that the learned Court ought to have appreciated the financial position of the applicant. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the scheme and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is to protect and safeguard the interests of destitute wives, children, and parents who are neglected or refused maintenance by the person against whom they claim. Further, the object is to compel a person to perform the moral obligation owed to society in respect of maintaining parents, wife, and children so that they are not left destitute and forced into a life of vagrancy, immorality, or crime for subsistence. In the instant case, no such circumstances existed, and the object of the provision was misapplied. He submits that the findings of the learned Family Court are erroneous and contrary to the material available on record, and the findings are not based on any legal evidence, requiring re-assessment in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents oppose the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the 6 parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No. 01 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek