1 2025:CGHC:54085 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3317 of 2025 1 - A. Chinnaiya S/o Late A. Guruvaiyya Aged About 54 Years (Now 56 Years), R/o Q. No. 3b Street No. 8 Ward No. 66 Sector-7 Bhilai P.S. Bhilai Nagar Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. A. Venkatlaxmma Wd/o Late A. Guruvaiyya Aged About 79 Years (Now 81 Years) R/o Q. No. 73, Street No. 8 Ward No. 66 Sector-7 Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sub Divisional Magistrate Durg District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Appellate Tribunal District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Smt. Pooja Sinha along with Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 06/11/2025 2 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally at motion stage. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by Appellate Tribunal, District Magistrate Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) (respondent no. 3) which has arisen against order dated 29.07.2024 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) under which Rs. 10,000/- per month has been awarded in terms of maintenance and the appellate tribunal/ respondent no. 3 affirmed the order of respondent no. 2. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent no. 1 are son and mother. The respondent no. 1 had filed an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 before the trial Court claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month, from the petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that pm 11.03.2024 the case was fixed for cross-examination of the application but the counsel appeared on behalf of non-applicant had not signed on the Vakalatnama and therefore he was not permitted to cross- examine the witness and the case was fixed for final argument by closing the opportunity to cross examine the respondent no. 1 herein. He therefore prays for setting-aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Court of SDM, Durg and order dated 01.09.2025 passed by Collector/ Appellate Tribunal, Durg. 3 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the contention made by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner herein has not given the opportunity to cross examine the respondent no. 1, the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 01.09.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2 with direction to give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent no. 1. 8. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to pay a monthly allowance for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) to respondent no. 1 till the disposal of the case. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima