1 2025:CGHC:24921 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1192 of 2016 1 - Arjun Lal Chandrakar S/o Late Rampyari Chandrakar, Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Kharora, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Jhuni Bai, W/o Shri Arjunlal Chandrakar, Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Kharora, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Kamalnarayan Chandrakar S/o Shri Arjun Lal Chandrakar, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Kharora, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rohit Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Arjun Lal Chandrakar, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Kharora, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by the learned Magistrate, Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 29/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants for grant of maintenance. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the the applicants have filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court, for the grant of maintenance. The application was filed on the ground that the applicants are old persons and the respondents are not maintaining them, because of old age they are not in a position to maintain themselves and there is no source of income for their livelihood. The respondent No.1 use to ear Rs. 1,00,000/- per year from agriculture, factory and by teaching and respondent No.2 use to ear Rs. 50,000/- per year from agriculture and 500/- from tailoring and therefore respondents should be given Rs. 10,000/- per month towards the amount of maintenance. The respondents have filed the written statement and denied all the contention of the applicants. It was further stated in the written, that the applicants have on the influences of their daughter have sold out their entire property and have sufficient means for their survivor. It was also stated in the reply that the mother of the respondent NO.2 use to live under poverty line and the and the respondents have not sufficient means of their livelihood. The learned Family Court vide its order dated 30.09.2016, has given its finding that the applicants have failed to prove their case against the respondents. Therefore, the application 3 for grant of maintenance was dismissed. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to well settled law. It is further submitted that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and witnesses available on record in its correct prospective. The learned Family Court has grossly erred in holding that the applicants have not succeeded to prove their case and has not appreciated the evidence of the applicants. The learned Family Court ought ot have appreciated the fact that the applicants are old persons and are unable to maintain themselves. The learned Family Court has totally overlooked the conduct of the respondents. Thus, the order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a Civil Suit was filed by both the respondents against the applicants in which the matter has been settled between the parties, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and also considering the fact that a Civil Suit was filed by both the respondents against the applicants in which the matter has been settled between the parties. Hence, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby 4 dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 8. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar