1 2025:CGHC:32959 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 835 of 2021 1. Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal Jagatramka Aged About 78 Years R/o Shyam Talkies Road, Raigarh, At Present - Attarmuda Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2. Deleted (Shri Pratibha Devi Jagatrmaka) (Died) Honble Court Order Dated 09/11/2023 And 26/02/2024 ... Applicant versus 1. Akhilesh Kumar Jagatramka S/o Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka, Aged About 48 Years Occupation Business, Aged About-48 Years, R/o Nayi Sadak Raigarh District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2. Anant Kumar Jagatramka S/o Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka Aged About 51 Years Occupation Business, R/o Heramb Industries, Shyam Talkies Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 01 : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 02 : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 01 as well as Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 02. 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 the revision may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Judge (Family Court Raigarh) may kindly be set-aside/modified by awarding the maintenance allowance sum of Rs. 1,74,750/- to the revisioners in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicants No. 1 & 2 filed an application against Respondent No. 1 (Akhilesh Jagatramka) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) seeking grant of maintenance. In their application under Section 125 CrPC, the applicants claimed maintenance from respondent No. 1 on the ground that they are dependent upon him and have no source of income for their livelihood. They claimed an amount of Rs. 98,250/- per month as maintenance. During the pendency of the proceedings, the applicants amended the application seeking enhancement and grant of maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,74,750/- per month. 4. After receiving notice in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, respondent No. 1 filed a specific reply detailing the business ventures and sources of income of the present applicants. 5. The applicants also filed an interim application seeking interim maintenance, which was replied to by respondent No. 1 before the learned Family Court, pending adjudication of the maintenance proceedings. The learned Family Court, Raigarh, vide order dated 3 22/02/2018, directed respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month as interim maintenance. 6. Respondent No. 1 preferred a petition under Section 482 CrPC bearing Cr.M.P. No. 514/2018 challenging the order dated 22/02/2018 granting Rs. 40,000/- per month as interim maintenance (Rs. 10,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 30,000/- per month to applicant No. 2) from the date of the order. On 15/05/2018, the Hon’ble High Court passed the following order: “14. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated discussion, the order granting interim maintenance is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Family Court, Raigarh with the following directions: (i) The parties will appear before the Family Court, Raigarh on 23.05.2018 and will file their affidavits in support of the application for interim maintenance/reply within 7 days from their appearance (23.05.2018). (ii) Thereafter, the Family Court, Raigarh will consider and decide the application for interim maintenance afresh within 7 days thereafter by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the parties, on or before 11.06.2018. (iii) The final maintenance proceedings shall be decided expeditiously as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh (Supra).” 7. Thereafter, the applicants and respondent No. 1 filed their affidavits before the Family Court, Raigarh. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 01.06.2018, the Family Court, Raigarh passed an order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to applicant No. 1 (father of the 4 respondent) and Rs. 30,000/- to applicant No. 2 (mother of the respondent). Challenging this, Cr.M.P. No. 1427/2018 under Section 482 CrPC was filed, wherein the Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 26/11/2019, held in paragraphs 08 & 09: “It is nowhere apparent that the respondents are having sufficient income to maintain themselves. Even before this Court, the petitioner has failed to show that the respondents have sufficient income to maintain themselves. Merely because they own some landed property and have filed civil/criminal cases against the petitioner, they cannot be denied the privilege of interim maintenance during the pendency of the maintenance proceedings. As such, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Family Court, Raigarh. Accordingly, the Cr.M.P., being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay the amount of interim maintenance to the respondents, if not already paid, within two weeks from today.” 8. After adducing oral and documentary evidence by both parties, the learned Family Court, Raigarh, passed the final impugned order dated 18/08/2021, allowing the application under Section 125 CrPC partly by awarding maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- each to the applicants, to be paid by the respondents, with each Respondent paying Rs. 5,000/- per month to each of the applicants. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, after considering the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the reply filed by the respondents, without considering the actual facts and without 5 application of judicial mind, mechanically and arbitrarily passed the impugned order by partly allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granting a maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- each to the applicants, instead of granting the total claimed maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,74,750/-. The present applicants have clearly stated in their pleadings that they have no occupation and have filed documents showing that they have no source of income. However, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate these documents judicially and without proper application of mind. He submits that the learned Family Court has failed to consider the claim of maintenance allowance as per the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. submitted by the applicants, including the expenses mentioned under various heads therein. The Family Court relied on the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 150] but did not award maintenance allowance in accordance with the law laid down therein. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal held: “The court is to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, and the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such that she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband, and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.” 6 10. The learned Family Court, without following the law laid down in the above judgment, arbitrarily and without applying its judicial mind, awarded a very low maintenance amount to the applicants without providing any valid reason. He submits that the learned Family Court has also arrived at the conclusion that it is the obligation of the respondents to maintain their parents (Revisioners) and held in paragraph 37 that the applicants do not have sufficient means to maintain themselves. The test for whether the parents are unable to maintain themselves is whether they are in a position to maintain themselves in the manner they were accustomed to in their own house along with their children. It is the duty of children to provide shelter and maintenance to their parents, and if they neglect this duty, the parents are legally entitled to claim it from the court by moving a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The section gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of children to maintain their parents as long as they are unable to maintain themselves. In the instant matter, the respondents have compelled the applicants to leave their own house, a fact which has not been considered by the Family Court. He submits that the applicants were awarded interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- to applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2, respectively, by order dated 01/06/2021, which was confirmed by this Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 26/11/2019 in Cr.M.P. No. 1427/2018. However, this interim maintenance order was not considered while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at the time of passing the impugned final order, nor did the learned Family Court observe why the applicant were being awarded less maintenance than the interim maintenance previously granted. He submits that from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, it is crystal clear that although the applicants have landed 7 property in their names, considering their old age (78 and 71 years, respectively), their medical conditions, and ongoing treatment, they have no income to maintain themselves. Therefore, they are entitled to the maintenance allowance as mentioned and claimed under various heads of expenses in their application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court has not considered their needs as per law and has not assigned reasons for not awarding maintenance accordingly. The learned Family Court observed in paragraph 35 of the impugned order that the applicants admitted in their affidavit that they are receiving amounts of Rs. 8,500/- and Rs. 5,000/- per month, respectively, from amounts deposited under the SCSS scheme framed by the Government of India for senior citizens. However, the Family Court ignored the clarification given by applicant No. 1 in paragraph 41 of his statement that they had withdrawn these deposited amounts for their own needs during the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court. The learned Family Court failed to give any finding on this point and wrongly treated these amounts as their income. 11. The learned Family Court has also failed to consider the admitted fact that the applicant transferred their properties worth crores to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 (grandson) by way of gift deeds without receiving any consideration. Despite this, the Family Court awarded a meager maintenance allowance as if the applicants were beggars, thereby denying them justice, as the maintenance awarded is not in accordance with their status. The findings of the learned Family Court are erroneous, contrary to the material available on record, and are not based on any legal evidence, and hence, need to be re-assessed in the interest of justice. 8 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 01 as well as respondent No. 02 oppose the prayer and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 14. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties partially allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and was awarded of Rs. 10,000/-, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 15. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 16. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek