1 2025:CGHC:37935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 875 of 2025 Smt. Sonia W/o Late Kalia Sethi, Aged About 35 Years R/o Vivekanand Colony Charcha Kalari, Police Station- Charcha, Tehsil- Baikunthpur, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Manas W/o Late Shobhnath, Aged About 61 Years R/o Subhash Nagar Charcha Kalari, Police Station Charcha, Tehsil- Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. By way of this revision petition, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this revision, set aside the impugned order dated 23/01/2025 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Manendragadh Camp, Baikunthpur, Dist- Koriya, (C.G.) in M.C.C. No.75/2024 in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant submitted in her application that her daughter-in-law got compassionate appointment KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 in the colliery after the death of her son. After getting the job, the applicant kept the non-applicant with her for years and maintained her. But three months ago, the non-applicant was beaten, abused and thrown out of the house, due to which the non-applicant is currently living separately. The non-applicant is not maintaining by the applicant. Due to lack of financial hardship, she could not maintain herself, therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 15000/- per month from the applicant. 4. The applicant has submitted a written reply to the application and submits that the applicant's husband Kalia Sethi got a job under the scheme in the year 2015. After the death of her husband, the applicant got a job in the year 2019. The non-applicant has been living in village Sundarpur, District Ganjam, Odisha since the beginning and used to come there intermittently. The non-applicant also used to give her money as expenses. The applicant's health is poor, due to which she is not able to do a regular job. The applicant has a medical card from the colliery. The applicant had to pay a salary during her husband's job. The non-applicant received the amount deposited in the colliery fund. The non-applicant has sufficient amount, which she is depositing in the bank and receiving money. Apart from this, the non-applicant receives a pension of seven thousand rupees per month from the colliery. She lives in village Sundarpur and has farm from which she is able to maintain herself. 3 5. After considering the pleadings and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, partly allowed the application of the non-applicant and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the non- applicant as maintenance from the date of filing of the application. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the Section 125 of Cr.P.C. specifically outlines who can claim maintenance, and mothers-in-law are not included in that list. The section primarily covers maintenance for wives, children, and parents (biological or adoptive) of the person liable to pay maintenance. He further submits that the finding of Family Court is erroneous on the face of record as the learned Family Court has heavily relied upon the statement of non- applicant and ignored vital submissions made by the applicant and her witnesses. 7. He further relied on a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case of Peddakka Vs. M.Kondamma dated 01.12.2015, it was held as follows:- “A bare perusal of section 125 of Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that a mother-in- law cannot claim any right of maintenance thereunder against her daughter-in- law. So far as are as the right against the grandsons concerned, it can be enforced only if the grandmother has no sons or daughters alive. If sons and daughters are alive, she would be entitled to claim maintenance 4 from them under clause (d) Sub-Section (1) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; thus, where a grandmother has living daughters, she cannot claim maintenance from grandsons. As already observed in the case at hand that the applicant Peddakka has three daughters alive and she is already living with one of them, namely Ishwari Yadav. If she is not being properly maintained by her daughters, she is entitled to claim maintenance from them; however, during the life time any of them, she has no claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her grandsons." 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the daughter of non-applicant is liable to maintain her and it was a mandatory obligation for her to look after her mother. The non-applicant has sufficient means to maintain herself yet she claimed an amount of maintenance from her daughter-in-law. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous, unjust, unreasonable and illegal and same has been passed on the basis of conjuncture and surmises and therefore same deserves to be set- aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicant, who are 5 mother-in-law of the applicant before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount from the applicant. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 23.01.2025, whereby partly allowed the application of the applicant and granted monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/-. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 11. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned order. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal