1 2025:CGHC:29183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 645 of 2025 Purushottam Singh Vashisht (Thakur) S/o Late Jadusingh Vashisht Aged About 44 Years Working On Post Of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Primary School (Pasrapara), Sankul Baster, District - Baster, Chhattisgarh R/o Village - Baster, Pasra Para, Jagdalpur, Tehsil - Jagdalpur, District - Baster, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Shrimati Chandravati Wd/o Late Jadusingh Vashisht Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Bharni, Post Office - Kolchur, Tehsil - Baster, District - Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shobit Koshta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shobit Koshta, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the instant criminal revision. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.77/2024, whereby learned Family Court has rejected the objection filed by the applicant with regard to the maintainability of the application for maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent, who is the step-mother of the applicant, filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance. The applicant, being the son, was given a compassionate appointment after his father's death, with the understanding that he would take care of the respondent and other family members. However, the applicant allegedly neglected his duties and refused to maintain the respondent. In response, the applicant filed a reply, arguing that the application is not maintainable since the benefits from the compassionate appointment do not form part of the deceased's estate, and therefore, the respondent cannot claim maintenance from it. Additionally, the respondent receives a family pension and other benefits amounting to Rs.20,786/- and has agricultural properties generating an annual income of Rs.2.5 to 3 lakhs, making her capable of maintaining herself. The applicant relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in FAM 3 No. 177/2015, which held that an application for maintenance is not maintainable from benefits accruing from compassionate appointments since they do not form part of the deceased's estate. Despite this, the learned Family Court held that the application under Section 125 of CrPC is maintainable and decided in favor of the respondent. Hence, the criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent has not stated in her application that she is unable to maintain herself. Instead, she claimed maintenance based on the understanding that the applicant would take care of her and other family members after his father's death, which indicates that the claim is based on benefits arising from the compassionate appointment. He further submits that the Court overlooked the substance of the application, focusing on its form rather than its essence, which clearly shows that the application for maintenance is not maintainable. The Court failed to consider that the respondent / mother has sufficient means to earn and maintain herself, making her ineligible for maintenance. He also submits that the benefits accruing from the compassionate appointment do not form part of the deceased's estate, and therefore, the respondent cannot claim maintenance from it, which the Court erred in not appreciating this crucial aspect. Given the facts, circumstances, and evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent has 4 sufficient means to maintain herself. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.77/2024 while rejecting the objection raised by the applicant with regard to the maintainability of the application for maintenance has observed that Smt. Chandravati is the mother of the applicant, Purushottam Singh, the inter-se relationship is admitted by both the parties, it is also the case of both the parties that after death of Late Sh. Jadu Singh, who happens to be father of applicant, the applicant got compensate appointment as Assistant Teacher and as per the averments of the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC, presently the applicant is neglecting to maintain the respondent. The judgment relied upon on behalf of applicant is not applicable to the present case being based upon different facts, as in the said case maintenance was claimed under Section 20 read with Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the application in hand has been filed under Section 125 of CrPC. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the Family Court, the Family Court has not committed 5 any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal