1 2025:CGHC:29184 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 647 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 Bastar, District- Bastar, C.G., R/o Village- Bastar, Pasra Para, Jagdalpur, Tahsil - Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Shrimati Chandravati Wd/o Late Jadusingh Vashisht (Thakur) Aged About 66 Years R/o Village- Barni, Post Office - Kolchur, Tehsil - Bastar, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... 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. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.77/2024, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs.7,000/- per month as interim KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 maintenance to the respondent / wife in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent is the mother of the applicant. The respondent’s husband, the late Shri Jadusingh Vashisth, was in government service and died on August 3, 2005, while in service. After her husband's death, the applicant (Purushottam Singh Vashisth), the respondent’s eldest son, was given a compassionate appointment. The applicant is currently working as an Assistant Teacher at Primary School Parsapara, Bastar, and is receiving a monthly salary of Rs.65,000. However, the applicant has stopped providing maintenance to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent has prayed for an interim maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month from the applicant. After receiving the notice, the applicant (son) filed a reply, submitting that the application for maintenance is not maintainable. The benefits derived from the compassionate appointment are not part of the deceased's estate, and therefore, the respondent (mother) cannot claim a share from it. Additionally, it was submitted that the respondent is receiving a family pension and other benefits amounting to Rs.20,786/- and also has agricultural properties that generate an annual income of Rs.2.5 to 3 lakhs. Given these sufficient means, the respondent is capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, the applicant prayed for the dismissal of the maintenance application. During the pendency of the case, the 3 respondent / mother filed an application for grant of interim maintenance before the Family Court, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs.7,000/- per month interim maintenance to respondent vide order dated 09.05.2025. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite the applicant producing documents regarding the respondent's source of income, the Court granted interim maintenance, which is illegal and contrary to the law. Further, the respondent failed to state in her application that she is unable to maintain herself, which is a crucial requirement for claiming interim maintenance. He further submits that the Court overlooked the fact that the applicant has a limited income and is responsible for supporting his family, children, and managing household responsibilities. He also submits that the Court erred by not considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Others, which mandates that parties must furnish an affidavit regarding their income. In this case, the respondent deliberately omitted to disclose her sources of income, assets, and liabilities in her affidavit, while the applicant provided documentary evidence. Lastly, the Court failed to appreciate that the respondent / mother has sufficient means to maintain herself and does not need any maintenance amount. Furthermore, the fact that she is not seeking maintenance from her other two sons and one daughter suggests that her case is false and fabricated. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent towards interim maintenance observing that the respondent is mother of the applicant, and the applicant is working as an Assistant Teacher on compassionate grounds following his father's death. The respondent claims that the applicant used to provide Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance but has stopped doing so, prompting the filing of the application. On the other hand, the respondent receives a monthly pension of Rs.20,000/- from her deceased husband's department and earns income from agricultural land, making her capable of maintaining herself. Although documents such as bank statements and land records have been submitted, it is revealed that the respondent’s name is jointly mentioned in the land records. The pension amount and the respondent’s ability to maintain herself are matters of evidence to be determined during the trial. Given the undisputed facts that the respondent is the mother and a senior citizen, and the applicant is working as an Assistant Teacher, the Family Court came to the conclusion that it is deemed appropriate to grant interim maintenance to the respondent until the final disposal of the case. 5 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the Family Court concerned shall make earnest endeavor to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal