1 2025:CGHC:34092 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 898 of 2021 Smt. Nainsi Peter Dhansan D/o Manvel Peter Dhansan Aged About 30 Years W/o Rohit Kumar Kasiv, C/o Badal Makkad, F.C.I. Road, P.S., Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Manvel Peter Dhansan S/o Late H B Dhansan Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Subhas Nagar, Mahasamund, P.S., Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by learned Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.62/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125(1) CrPC filed by the respondent 2 and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant had arranged the marriage of the applicant with Rohit Kumar Kasiw about 7 years ago. After the death of the respondent’s wife about 4 years ago, the respondent, being alone, had taken the applicant and her family to live with him so that she could take care of him and provide for his maintenance. However, the applicant's husband had a bad behavior towards the respondent, often picking up quarrels and physically abusing him, with the applicant also being complicit. After a dispute, the applicant went to live elsewhere with her family and did not make any arrangements for the respondent’s care or medical treatment. The respondent, being elderly and unable to work, has no source of income and suffers from health issues such as high blood pressure and diabetes. He also has a fractured hand due to an accident, which has left him disabled and unable to perform daily tasks. In contrast, the applicant has been working as a government teacher for about 16 years, currently employed in the Arang block, and earns a monthly salary of approximately Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the respondent seeks a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000 from the applicant to cover his health and daily expenses. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced has directed to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court erred in passing the ex-parte order without properly perusing the order sheet. The applicant/respondent had filed an application under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. on 19.07.2021, and on the same day, the case was registered and notice was directed to be issued to the respondent/petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on 23.08.2021, and on that very day, due to non- appearance of the petitioner despite service of notice, the petitioner was declared ex-parte without affording any further opportunity of appearance or hearing. Subsequently, on 23.09.2021, the learned Court passed the ex-parte order without granting any subsequent opportunity to the petitioner/non- applicant, which is arbitrary, illegal, and bad in the eyes of law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125(1) CrPC filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing the fact that the documents Ex. P-3 to P-5, which include the applicant Smt. Nancy Peter's salary slip for the year 2015 and her Form No. 16, prove that the applicant was working as an Assistant Teacher and her total salary in 2015 was Rs.20,290/-. Therefore, she is found to be capable of providing 4 maintenance. The Family Court further observed the age of respondent who is aged about 62 years, is a widower with no son, and therefore, the respondent, being his daughter, is obligated to provide for his maintenance. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil