1 2025:CGHC:25109 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 984 of 2017 Golaram Dulhani S/o Late Sadhuram Dulhani, Aged About 52 Years R/o Shahani Street - 7, Behind Swikar House, Near Railway Crossing, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Deleted Smt. Kavita Dulhani And Anr. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 25.10.2017, Chhattisgarh 2 - Hema Dulhani, D/o Mr. Golaram Dulhani, Aged About 21 Years R/o Mahaveer Nagar, Near Anmol Super Bazaar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 19.07.2017 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.461/2017, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 herein are husband and wife, they got married on 15.03.1985 and from their wedlock the respondent No. 2 l.e, the daughter and 3 sons born. All the children born from their wedlock has attained the age of majority. The respondents herein has filed the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the 1st Additional Principal Judge Family Court Raipur C.G. and made averments therein that, on dated 15.03.1985 the marriage was solemnized between the respondent No.1 and the applicant and after marriage respondent No. 1 and applicant had resided at Varasivani M.P. The respondent No. 2 is the daughter of the applicant. The respondent further made averments that on dated 27.01.2014 when the respondent No. 1 has gone out of the house with her son the applicant has sold the house which has been informed to respondent No. 2 by her mother i.e. respondent No. 1 and thereafter the respondent were residing at the rental house for which the rent has been given by the applicant and after the expiry of the rent agreement the applicant has stopped paying rent for which the respondents have to vacant the rental house and thereafter the respondents are residing in the house of the 3 son of respondent No. 1 and claimed the maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner. Upon issuance of notice the applicant has marked the appearance before the learned Family Court and has filed the reply to the said application and categorically denied the averments made by the respondents and stated that the applicant is old aged and wont able to earn for himself for his living even has no house for residence and is residing with his sister and totally dependent on his sister. The applicant further stated that the respondent has not given any money to purchase the house and the house which was sold by him that belongs to him and further the applicant is suffering from heart problem and the he is taking treatment which is very expensive and for that the applciant has to sold the said house. Further the respondent No. 1 used to work as an agent in Post Office and earn more than Rs. 3 lakhs and the respondent has also the pan card for which the respondent No. 1 used to pay the income tax. Further the respondent No. 2, daughter of the applicant, is also well educated and completed her studies as an engineer and having a degree of B.Tech from National Institute of Technology (NIT), Raipur. applicant and the respondent No.1 is also blessed with the 2 sons, the elder son is the Captain in Indian Army who is earning more than Rs. 1 lakhs and the other son is an Engineer who is also earning more than Rs. 60,000/- per month and respondent No.1 is still working as the agent in the post office and earning handsome amount and both the respondents are residing with the 4 son. The respondents filed the maintenance application only on the provocation made by the sons of the applicant. Even the respondent has also filed the maintenance application against the sons of the applicant, which is pending before the Family Court. 4. After hearing the parties in the matter, the Family Court has partially allowed the application and refused to grant maintenance to the respondent No. 1 but granted maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month to the respondent No. 2. Hence, the criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has failed to look that the respondent No. 2 is highly educated and is also working and doing private job at Stratview Research as a Associate Researcher and is earning more than Rs 25,000/- per month, further the applicant is unemployed old aged person and is dependent on his son who is not providing any maintenance to the applicant due to which the applicant is residing in the house of his sister. He also submits that their marriage was solemnized in the year 1985 and after 32 years of marriage no explanation has been given for not filing the maintenance application during this periods by the respondents further the applicant has specifically stated that the respondents have filed the maintenance at the provocation made by the son of the applicant and the respondent No. 1 as the applicant has warned his son that if they will not give maintenance then the applicant will file the case against them but the Family Court instead of dismissing the said application of the respondents has 5 partially allowed and grant the maintenance to respondent No. 2, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 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 partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that the evidence presented by both parties, it is established that respondent No. 1, Smt. Kavita Dulhani, resides separately from the applicant and earns a monthly income of approximately Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/-. She is financially independent, earning more than the applicant, and is an income tax payer. Although she lives separately from her husband and resides in a rented house, she has not disclosed the amount of rent paid to the landlord. Respondent No. 2 is unmarried daughter, has no source of income. Therefore, the Family Court has granted maintenance to respondent No.2. 8. 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. 6 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil