1 2025:CGHC:52206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1243 of 2025 Samiran Bose S/o Shri Subhash Bose Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. 902, Parisar Bhairav Nagar, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Subhash Bose S/o Late Rasiklal Bose Aged About 65 Years R/o House No. 902, Parisar Bhairav Nagar, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur C.G., Present Address- C/o Advocate A.K. Kundu, Office Of Bar Association Room No. 206, Civil Court Campus Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Krishnakumar Dixit, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.10.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.404/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.9,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact that the applicant and the respondent are son and father respectively. The record reveals that the respondent met with an accident in the year 2014, resulting in a compound fracture in his right leg, for which a rod was implanted. The respondent has alleged that after the said incident, the applicant and his wife (the respondent’s daughter-in-law) started subjecting him to cruelty by beating, abusing, and threatening him with false criminal implications. Owing to such harassment, the respondent left his home and lived in a temple for nearly two years. Thereafter, upon persuasion by community members, he started residing in the servant quarters of the same premises. 3. The respondent has further alleged that whenever he demanded maintenance or requested to stay in the main house, the respondent and his wife abused and assaulted him and even threatened to kill him. It is stated that a complaint was lodged by the respondent at Tikrapara Police Station, after which the respondent agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance. However, the respondent asserts that the applicant frequently locks the house, compelling him to live in temple premises or on the streets. 3 4. The respondent stated that the applicant stopped providing maintenance and that he and his wife are surviving with the assistance of their daughter and other well-wishers. The respondent has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant earns around Rs.1,00,000/- per month from contracting and property dealings. Hence, the respondent sought a monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- from the applicant. The learned Family Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, partly allowed the application of the respondent and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment passed by the Family Court is bad in law as well as on the facts available on record. It is contended that the Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, but he is not financially competent and has no independent source of income. The learned Family Court further erred in holding that the respondent voluntarily left the company of the applicant, whereas there is no evidence on record to support such a finding. It is further submitted that the Family Court has failed to consider the evidence adduced by the respondent regarding the mental and physical cruelty, torture, and harassment inflicted upon him by the applicant and his wife. The applicant is stated to be ill-treating and misbehaving with the respondent on a regular basis, compelling 4 him to live separately. It is also urged that the applicant has no means for his livelihood and is dependent on meagre earnings from private work, facing continuous financial, mental, and physical hardship. Despite these circumstances, the Family Court without proper appreciation of evidence and without due application of mind, has erroneously allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order being illegal, unjust, and perverse, is liable to be quashed by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court after considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by both parties, allowed the application filed by the present respondent under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. The learned Family Court observed that the respondent, aged about 65 years, has no independent source of income and is suffering from multiple ailments, including poor eyesight, hearing difficulty, and a fractured leg sustained in an earlier accident, which render him incapable of earning his livelihood. The evidence adduced by the respondent and his witnesses corroborated these facts. On the other hand, the Court found that the applicant is a person of sufficient means. In his own testimony, the applicant admitted to earning between Rs.20,000/- 5 to Rs.25,000/- per month, owning a Maruti car, working as a petty contractor, and filing income-tax returns reflecting an annual income of Rs.2.50 lakhs. Considering these facts, the Family Court held that the respondent was unable to maintain himself and that the applicant possessed adequate financial capacity to provide support. Accordingly, the Family Court decided the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant and, taking into account the social and economic status of both parties, awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand) to the respondent, Shri Subhash Bose. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil