1 2025:CGHC:34593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1335 of 2023 Vishambhar Dewangan S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Pasod Tahsil Devri, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Fulbasan Bai W/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Aged About 76 Years Caste Kosta, R/o Village Pasod Tahsil Devri, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anukul Biswas, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside impugned order dated 31.10.2023, passed by Judge, Kutumb Nyayalay, Balod Annexure P-1.” ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.22 15:22:44 +0530 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the impugned order dated 31-10-2023, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balod, directs the appellant to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month. In paragraph 6 of the said order, the monthly income of Shri Ashok Kumar, the elder son of the respondent, has been mentioned as Rs. 1 lakh per month. A copy of the order dated 31-10-2023 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE A-1. The impugned order shows that the respondent has not impleaded her elder son, Ashok Dewangan, who earns Rs. 1 lakh per month; therefore, the application for maintenance was not maintainable for want of a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 3 of the CPC. 4. The amount of maintenance cannot be ordered to be paid by the appellant as the appellant is willing to maintain and discharge his social and legal obligations. The respondent has never given any notice stating that the applicant is unwilling to maintain her. The applicant has also submitted in writing before the Family Court that he is willing to maintain his mother, the respondent. Learned Family Court has not considered this aspect in the impugned order and has also failed to consider many important submissions necessary for adjudicating the grant of maintenance, including the fact that the gift deed dated 08-12-2021 was fraudulently executed by the elder son, Ashok Kumar Dewangan, without consideration, which is evident from the statement of the respondent. However, the learned Family Court has not considered this fact in the impugned judgment. The applicant has stated in paragraph 2 of his statement in the case that he was willing to keep his mother with him and wanted to serve her, but the learned Family Court did not consider the same and has ordered the appellant to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent. The elder son of the respondent, Ashok 3 Kumar Dewangan, after getting the gift deed executed from the respondent, has managed to get his name recorded in the revenue records. To prove the same, a copy of the B-1 Kistbandi Khatauni is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE A-4. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the orders passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, erroneous, and bad in law, and are therefore liable to be set aside. He also submits that Annexure A-3 proves that the appellant has informed the Court that he is willing to maintain and serve his mother, the respondent, considering her old age. However, this fact has not been considered in the impugned order, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. A copy of the statement of the appellant in the Court has been enclosed with this appeal as Annexure A-3. He further submits that the learned Family Court ought to have seen that the application for maintenance deserved to be dismissed for want of a necessary party. The elder son, Ashok Kumar, who earns Rs. 1 lakh per month, has obtained the execution of a gift deed of land from the respondent, which was given to him as his share in lieu of maintenance upon the demand of the respondent. Therefore, the order directing the appellant to pay maintenance is illegal and deserves to be set aside. He also submits that the Annexures A-2 and A-3, along with the statement of the respondent in the Court, prove that Ashok Kumar, the elder son of the respondent, has cheated the respondent by getting the land transferred in his name through a gift deed. The elder son of the respondent earns Rs. 1 lakh per month, and as he is not maintaining the respondent, the amount of maintenance should have been ordered to be paid by him. Further, the respondent should have been directed to reside with the appellant, who is willing to serve and maintain her in her old age by keeping her with him. 4 6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek