1 2025:CGHC:40127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 8 of 2024 Durga Bai (Widow) Late Anuj Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Near New Railway Colony Uslapur Grih Nirman Colony Thana Civil Line Tehsil and District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Devlal Sahu S/o Late Anuj Ram Sahu Aged About 30 Years Profession Railway Service, Post - Peon, Railway Zone Office, GRM Office Bilaspur, Tehsil and District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and grant Rs.10,000/- maintenance to the applicant and quash/set-aside the order dated 22/11/2023 (Annexure A-1)passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Bilaspur in MJC Case No. 476/2016 in the interest of justices.” PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.13 14:07:47 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant is the second wife of Late Anuj Ram Sahu, who passed away in harness. The applicant solemnized her marriage with Late Anuj Ram Sahu in the year 1999, after the death of his first wife, Smt. Phul Bai. The non-applicant is the step-son of the applicant, being the son of Late Anuj Ram Sahu and his first wife, Smt. Phul Bai. After her marriage with Anuj Ram Sahu, the applicant took care of his entire family, including the children of his first wife. After the death of Anuj Ram Sahu on 22.06.2014, the applicant relinquished her right to his job and gave her no-objection in favor of the non-applicant. As a result, the non- applicant obtained compassionate appointment as a peon in the Railway Zone Office, Bilaspur, and started receiving a salary of ₹24,000/- per month in place of the applicant. However, despite this, on 29.07.2016, the non-applicant forcefully evicted the applicant from her house. Consequently, she lodged a report against the non- applicant at the Civil Line Police Station. Due to her old age and lack of any means to sustain herself, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, seeking a monthly maintenance of ₹10,000/- from the non-applicant. 3. The non-applicant appeared before the Family Court and denied all the contentions raised by the applicant. He claimed that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of Late Anuj Ram Sahu. According to him, the applicant had previously married Hira Lal Sahu, a resident of Khair Chitti, Pandariya, District Kabirdham. Thereafter, she allegedly left Hira Lal Sahu and lived with a second husband, Jala Ram Sahu, with whom she had two sons and two 3 daughters. As there was no divorce from her previous marriages, he contended that her marriage with Late Anuj Ram Sahu was not legally valid. He further denied evicting the applicant from the house and claimed that he had received his appointment in the railways before the death of Anuj Ram Sahu. He also alleged that the applicant conspired to insert her name in the records and accounts of the deceased and, therefore, her application deserved to be dismissed. After hearing both parties, the learned trial court framed five issues and, upon appreciation of evidence, dismissed the application on the grounds that the applicant was receiving a family pension and that she was not the mother of the non-applicant. Hence, the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned trial court is perverse and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and is thus liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non- applicant, being the step-son of the applicant, is enjoying the estate and benefits of his deceased father. Therefore, he is legally and morally liable to maintain the applicant, who is his step-mother. The Family Court erred in not considering the settled principle of law that a step-son, who is residing in the house of the applicant and enjoying the property left by his deceased father, owes a duty of care and maintenance towards his step-mother, especially when the applicant is of old age and has no sufficient means to maintain herself. It is also on record that the applicant has been paying the loan liabilities incurred for the benefit of the family. Though she is 4 receiving a family pension as per the will, due to her advanced age and the high cost of medical treatment, the pension amount is not sufficient to meet her basic needs. Furthermore, the non-applicant secured a government job solely due to the applicant's no-objection and sacrifice, and in view of this, he has a greater responsibility to maintain her. The learned Family Court failed to apply the settled legal presumption that when a person avoids submitting a truthful affidavit or conceals material facts, the court may presume that he has not come with clean hands. The non-applicant deliberately withheld truthful information and misled the court. Therefore, adverse presumption should have been drawn against him, which the trial court failed to do. In light of the above submissions, the order passed by the learned Family Court is against the settled principles of law and justice and deserves to be quashed/set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the applicant is capable of maintaining herself and the non-applicant is also not the legitimate son of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of 5 Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, the maintenance application filed by her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is hereby dismissed by the Family Court. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 9. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti