1 2025:CGHC:23478 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 636 of 2025 1 - Santosh Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Punauram Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Jhulkadam Sakti, Police Station And Tahsil- Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Punam Bai W/o Late Punauram, Aged About 55 Years R/o Ranisagar Para, Ward No. 9 Sakti, Police Station And Tahsil- Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 12/06/2025 1. This revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is filed against the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.96/2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Link Family Court, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa whereby the application filed by the respondent- mother has been partly allowed by granting Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance. A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.06.17 14:27:06 +0530 2 2. The respondent mother has filed application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her elder son (applicant herein) for grant of maintenance wherein she pleaded that her younger son is unable to do any work due to illness and the applicant is quarrelsome in nature and used to assault her and in order to avoid the maintenance of family, he left the house and used to reside in a rented house. She further pleaded that applicant is earning Rs.25,000/- per month by weaving clothes and claimed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from him. 3. The applicant stated in his reply that his younger brother does not have any disease and he operates the power-loom installed by his father during his life time thereby his younger brother earns Rs.30,000/- per month. The non-applicant mother is a healthy woman, she earns Rs. 200/- per day by doing daliy-wage work, and she also gets ration and monthly pension from the State Government. He has further stated that he filed an application in Sakti Court for partition of the property, therefore, in order to save from partition proceeding, he was evicted from the house by the mother and younger brother and at the instance of his younger brother, the mother has filed application seeking maintenance. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in law by partly allowing the maintenance application without properly appreciating the facts and evidence that the mother is financially self-sufficient as she is a daily wage workers and further she gets ration and pension from the Government and the filing of maintenance application is an outcome of the partition petition filed by 3 him. He further submits that his younger brother is also earning sufficient income by operating power loom, therefore, the impugned order needs interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the material placed on record. 6. The learned Family Court has held that the fact had emerged from the application of mother, reply filed by the petitioner and evidence adduced by her that the respondent mother is biological and natural mother and he lives separately from his mother. A perusal of the material placed on record shows that petitioner is not paying any maintenance amount to the mother for her maintenance and she has stated that she resides in ancestral house along with her younger son and is doing the labour work. The defence raised by the respondent mother also goes to show that the younger son maintains her and the petitioner cannot be absolved from the responsibility of maintaining his mother. Though the petitioner has separately filed application for partition of ancestral property, yet he cannot avoid the responsibility of maintaining his mother as the mother is 55 years old woman and she is not capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held the petitioner is capable of maintaining his mother. 7. The trial Court has further held that the though petitioner is stated to be earning Rs.25000/- by weaving clothes on power loom, but no documentary proof has been placed in this regard. It has further recorded the fact that petitioner is healthy young man of 35 year old, he earns Rs.200/- per day by working as a labourer and this fact has 4 been accepted by him. The petitioner’s father i.e., respondent’s husband has passed away, hence the petitioner has social and moral responsibility to maintain his mother and further looking to the situation of the respondent mother who is residing in the house with her younger son, the trial Court thought it fit to grant maintenance to the mother and accordingly directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1500/- per month towards her maintenance, which cannot be said to be unreasonable. 8. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the trial Court order and other material placed on record, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court warranting interference in the revision. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao