1 2025:CGHC:30595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order reserved on: 30.06.2025 Order delivered on: 04.07.2025 Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2018 Satyam Khakha S/o Late Surendra Khakha Aged About 23 Years Occupation- Govt. Employ (C.G. Electricity Board, Jashpur Nagar) R/o- Village- Kadam Toli, Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rukhamani Khakha Wd/o Late Surendra Khakha Aged About 36 Years Caste- Uraon, Occupation- House Wife, R/o- Village- Purani Toli, Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anju Khakha D/o Late Surendra Khakha Aged About 14 Years Minor, Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother- Smt. Rukhmani Khakha, R/o- Village- Purani Toli, Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shivam Khakha S/o Late Surendra Khakha Aged About 12 Years Minor, Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother- Smt. Rukhmani Khakha, R/o- Village- Purani Toli, Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the Non- applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and the order impugned passed by the learned Family Court in M. Cri. Case No. 75/17 may be set- aside, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1 is the second wife of late Surendra Kumar Khakha. From his first marriage (now deceased), Surendra Kumar had two children – the present applicant and Jitendra, aged about 22 years. After the death of his first wife in the year 2002, Surendra Kumar married with non- applicant No.1 according to social customs, and thereafter, non- applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were born from this marriage. On 12/12/2010, while serving as a Lineman in the Electricity Department, Jashpur, Surendra Kumar died. For the proper maintenance of the family and all the children, as per the mutual agreement between the parties, the applicant was allowed to obtain a compassionate appointment on the condition that he would pay Rs. 5,000/- per month from his salary to the non-applicants for their maintenance. However, despite drawing a salary of Rs. 30,000– 35,000 per month, he has not been providing the said amount. Instead, he creates disputes and even threatens to kill them. As a 3 result, applications were submitted before the Collector, Jashpur, and even after arriving at a compromise, he failed to pay the maintenance to the non-applicants. He also refused to support his younger unemployed brother and lived separately from the entire family with his wife. Therefore, it has been requested that a maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month be awarded to all three non-applicants. 4. The present applicant, while admitting the facts stated in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment has denied the remaining allegations and stated that the non-applicants are his step-mother and step- siblings, and hence, they are not entitled to claim maintenance under the law. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed due to lack of legal eligibility. It was also submitted that after the death of the father, some amount was equally distributed between the applicant and his brother, and all departmental dues including DA were arranged in the name of non-applicant No.1, so that she could maintain the applicant’s grandmother and other family members and also arrange their marriages. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 06/03/2017 has already been set aside as being contrary to law, beyond jurisdiction and null & void. The non-applicant No.1 has evicted the applicant from the ancestral house, and since then, he has been living in a rented house and is drawing a salary of only Rs. 14,500/-. According to the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C., stepmother and step-siblings are not entitled to claim maintenance. 4 5. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated18.01.2018, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/(step mother) for the entire life or till she gets remarried and Rs. 3000/- per month each to the non- applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (step siblings, till they became adult) as amount of maintenance (total 7000/-) from the date of passing of the order. Hence this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order of the learned Family Court is bad in the eye of law, further against the motto of legislation as well. He further submits that the non- applicant No 1 is fully capable to maintain herself & other non- applicants as she get rent from the house and also get handsome amount of pensionery benefits of late Surendra Kumar Khakha, so that there is no finding regarding any cruelty committed by neither the applicant nor the non-applicants were unable to maintain themselves. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated rather neglected that the income of the applicant has not been discussed. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the non-applicant No 1 is not within the meaning of mother and she is also not childless or unable to maintain herself. He further submits that learned Family Court has passed the maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence of monthly income of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and 5 submits that after death of 1st wife of Surendra Khakha i.e. Kunti Bai, Surendra Khakha legally married to Rukmani. Late Surendra Khakha has enrolled name of Rukmani in his service book and other relevant service records. After death of Surendra on 12/12/2010, the Electricity Department offered compassionate appointment to widow/wife i.e. Rukmani. Considering the minor 3 child i.e. Jitendra, Anju and Sivam, Rukmani decided to give 'No Objection Certificate' in favor of 'Satyam', on the condition that he will take care of other family members. As the condition was agreed by Satyam regarding employment on compassionate basis, initially he supported the family by economically, but after his marriage he moved out and constructed new house at few distance in same locality. Satyam has demanded one motorcycle from non-applicant No. 1, who has given around Rs. 40,000/- and also half of the amount to Satyam from gratuity, etc. Further, Surendra was having 3 brothers, who were living under same roof with Rukmani and 3 minor children, therefore, she also moved out and constructed mud house in 'Nazul Land' in same locality. Surendra has stopped taking care of his family members and therefore, the non-applicant No. 1 who was also taking care of step son i.e. Jitendra has filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court for maintenance. Learned Family Court has considered the pension amount and other alimony (given to widow of Surendra) has awarded maintenance of Rs. 1000/-per month to non-applicant No.1 till her survival or till her remarriage, whichever takes first. He further submits that the applicant has stopped giving maintenance of Rs. 3000/- each (total 6 Rs. 6000/-) on maturity of Anju and Sivam from January, 2023. The applicant has also stopped giving maintenance of Rs. 1000/-per month to Rukmani Khakha (non-applicant No. 1) from January, 2023, and deliberately/willfully defaulted order of Learned Family Court. Initially the applicant was getting Rs.14,500/- per month in service and now he is getting above Rs.40,000/- per month. The non-applicant No. 1 has not got any property on share of her husband i.e. Surendra Khakha, and she is living in hut. The non- applicant No. 1 is taking care of one step son as her own child and at present 'Jitendra' is doing labor work, Anju has been given admission for BSC Nursing course and Sivam is 12th pass but at present doing nothing. That all the livelihood of 3 children's are upon non-applicant No.1's shoulder. He also submits that learned Family Court considering the need of the non-applicants and price index and other circumstances granted maintenance of Rs.1000/- to non- applicant No.1 till her survival or till her remarriage, whichever takes first and Rs.3000/- each to non-applicants No.2 and 3, which cannot be said to be on higher side and no interference is required by this Court. He relies upon the judgment of the Orisa High Court in the matter of Pitei Bewa v. Laxmidhar Jena, 1985 CrLJ 1124 (Cri), the judgment of the Patna High Court in the matter of Kaushalya Devi v. Anil Kumar Agrawal, 1996 (4) Crimes 318 (386) Patna and the judgment of the High Court in the matter of Ulleppa v. Gangabai, (2003) CrLJ 2566 (2568) (Kant.). 8. I have heard both the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant had been earning a sufficient income through the compassionate appointment. It is an admitted position on record that he had not been providing any maintenance amount to the non-applicants and was residing separately. Under the legal objective of granting compassionate appointment, it was considered to be the moral and legal duty of the appointee to provide maintenance to the dependents of the deceased until they became self-sufficient. Since the non-applicant No.1 was receiving pension benefits from the Government service of late Surendra Kumar Khakha, it was held that she could maintain herself and her children through the said pension amount. In light of the above discussion, the non-applicants were held entitled to receive maintenance from the applicant. After hearing both the parties, learned Family Court has held that the non- applicants have succeeded in proving their case. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/(step mother) for the entire life or till she gets remarried and Rs. 3000/- per month each to the non- applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (siblings) till they became adult as amount of maintenance, total 7000/- per month, from the date of passing of the order, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance 8 of Rs.7000/- per month to the non-applicants, 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. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judgment date:- 04/07/2025 Kunal