1 2025:CGHC:60568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1510 of 2025 Purushottam Singh Vashishtha (Thakur ) S/o Late Jadusingh Vashishtha, Aged About 44 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Govt. Primary School, Parsapara, Sankul- Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Chandravati W/o Late Jadusingh Vashishtha, Aged About 66 Years R/o Village- Bharni, P.O.- Kolchur, Tahsil- Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.12.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside /reduce the impugned order dated 24.06.2022 (annexure A-A), in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure claiming the 2 maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the present applicant before the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.). It was pleaded by the non-applicant in her application that there is a mother- son relationship between the non-applicant (mother) and the applicant (son). The non-applicant's husband Late Jadusingh Vashishtha died on 03.08.2005 while serving in a government post. As per government rules, upon recommendation for compassionate appointment to a family member, the non-applicant had given a No Objection Certificate to the applicant and accordingly, applicant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Parsapara District - Bastar(C.G.). Earlier, the applicant used to take responsibility for the maintenance of the non-applicant and the family and would provide Rs. 15,000/-, but later he stopped giving the amount. Therefore, the non-applicant lodged a complaint before the Collector and the District Education Officer. At present, the applicant is getting a salary of Rs. 65,000/-. Hence, the non- applicant requested that she be granted Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance from the present applicant. 3. The applicant filed his reply and denied all the adverse allegations stating that the non-applicant gets a family pension of Rs. 20,000/- per month and that agricultural land is recorded in her name in Village Bharni, from which she earns an agricultural income of Rs. 2.5 to 3 lakh per year. Thus, the non-applicant is capable of maintaining herself. The applicant also contended that the compassionate appointment obtained by him “is not the property of the deceased,” and therefore, the non-applicant is not entitled to 3 claim maintenance from the monthly salary arising from such compassionate appointment. It is further stated by the applicant in his reply that after paying income tax from his salary and meeting the expenses of his own family, no savings remained. It was also shown that he does not own any house and that the non-applicant is receiving a family pension of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Further, the applicant presented evidence that after his father's death, the non- applicant had received Rs. 6-7 lakh from government funds and also receives income from the Mahtari Vandana Yojana and agricultural land, thereby proving that she is capable of maintaining herself. 4. The learned Family Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and augment advanced by the parities, partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicant and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of filing of the application. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, perverse and suffers from serious procedural irregularities. The Family Court has failed to appreciate the undisputed fact that the non-applicant is already receiving Rs. 20,000/- per month as family pension and is also earning independent agricultural income of Rs. 2.5–3 lakh per annum from land standing in her name. The Family Court further ignored that she had already received Rs. 6–7 lakh as terminal benefits and is availing benefits from various government schemes, 4 which clearly show that she has adequate means to maintain herself. The learned Family Court overlooked the binding precedent of this Hon’ble High Court in FAM No. 177/2015 (Bharat Lal Sharma vs. Smt. Mithlesh Sharma) wherein it has been held that compassionate appointment is not the ‘estate of the deceased’. Instead of assessing the applicant’s actual disposable income, the Court mechanically relied only on his gross salary while ignoring his statutory liabilities and dependents. The findings recorded are contrary to evidence, suffer from non-application of judicial mind, and the burden of proving inability to maintain herself, legally on the non-applicant was wrongly shifted on the applicant. In these circumstances, the award of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month is excessive, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the non- applicant had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the applicant. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence and overall circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the applicant/son to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. Having regard to the social status of the parties, their respective earning capacities, and the reasonable expenses required for sustenance, the grant of 5 maintenance Rs. 10,000/- per month cannot, at this stage, be termed excessive or disproportionately high. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil