1 2025:CGHC:57309 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 978 of 2022 Bodhan Jaiswal S/o Late Tilakdhari Aged About 50 Years R/o Jarhi (Urjanagar), Quarter No. 36, Police Station Bhatgaon, Tahsil- Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Soniya Wd/o Late Tilakdhari Aged About 60 Years Caste- Jaiswal, R/o Village-Jhumarpara, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil And District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Nagpur, Police Station Podi, Tahsil Manendrapur District Koriya Chhatisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /11/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.07.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.191/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is admitted that the respondent Soniya is the mother of the applicant, Bodhan Jaiswal, who is her eldest surviving son. After the land of the applicant’s father was acquired by SECL, the applicant obtained employment as a pump operator on the condition that he would look after his mother. Alleging that the applicant, despite earning around Rs. 75,000–80,000 per month, was not maintaining her and that her other sons were unemployed, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-. The applicant denied these allegations, claiming he was willing to care for his mother but she had left with her sister following a dispute during Rakshabandhan. He further submitted that he is aged, ailing, and has to maintain his wife, children, and an unmarried daughter. After evaluating the evidence, the Family Court allowed the mother’s application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance, aggrieved by which the present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order of the Family Court is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case, as the Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction and relied on unfounded and uncorroborated findings. 3 The Court failed to properly appreciate that the respondent left the applicant’s home without any justifiable reason and therefore is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the Family Court erred in concluding that the respondent had proved his income, despite there being no reliable evidence on record. The Court also ignored that maintenance must be proportionate to the actual needs of the claimant, and that the respondent has no dependents, whereas the applicant has multiple responsibilities. He also submits that the Court overlooked the applicant’s age, ailments, and ongoing medical needs, as well as his responsibility to maintain his wife, children, and an unmarried daughter. The conclusion that the applicant neglected to maintain his mother is erroneous, particularly when she is residing separately of her own accord. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance observing that the mother (respondent) is an elderly and incapable woman with no independent source of income, and that the son (applicant) is a financially capable person earning substantial salary in SECL but has neglected his legal duty to 4 maintain her. The Court held that the mother’s separation was justified, her testimony remained unshaken, and the son failed to prove any valid reason for not supporting her. Considering the social and economic circumstances of both parties, the Family court concluded that the respondent is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil