1 2025:CGHC:27220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 451 of 2017 Arun Kumar Sen S/o Late Narayan Singh, Aged About 62 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Niranjan Singh Sen S/o Arun Kumar, Aged About 34 Years Address Is Welcome Hair Art Saloon Sarojani Chowk Kurud, Post And Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Karan K. Bahrani, Advocate. For Non-applicant ; Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Karan K. Baharani, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Aman Tamrakar, learned counsel for the Non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed, that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 13.04.2017 (Annexure R-1), passed by the learned Family Court Kanker District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 in M.J.C. No. 56/2016, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the father of the non- applicant. The applicant’s second son from his first wife has been raised entirely by his maternal uncle and aunt. After the demise of his first wife, the applicant contracted a second marriage. The applicant was employed as a conductor in the State Transport Corporation. After the closure of the State Transport Corporation in the year 2002, the applicant worked as a conductor in private buses for nearly 14 years. The non-applicant presently resides in Kurud and runs a saloon. Apart from the above undisputed facts, the applicant has further stated that his first wife passed away in the year 1986 during the delivery of their second son. The non-applicant is the elder son from his first wife. The younger son has been resided by his maternal uncle and aunt, who live in Abhanpur, and he is completely dependent on them. After the marriage of the elder son (non-applicant), the applicant began to be neglected. Feeling helpless after the demise of his wife and loneliness in life, the applicant eventually remarried. Throughout all these years, the non- applicant neither kept the applicant with him nor provided him with any maintenance. As long as the applicant was earning, he did not consider it appropriate to be a financial burden on his son (non- applicant). However, due to advancing age and deteriorating health, the applicant has been unable to continue working as a conductor in private buses for the past one year. He has thus been completely unemployed for the last one year and is undergoing severe financial hardship. The non-applicant is running a salon on the main road in 3 Kurud, and has workers employed under him. He earns around ₹25,000/- to ₹30,000/- per month from his business. Despite being capable, he has failed to provide any financial assistance to the applicant. Due to lack of financial support, the applicant is unable to bear his day to day expenses and is facing great hardship. Therefore, he filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- per month from the non-applicant. 4. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 13.04.2017, whereby the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, was rejected. Hence this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is not a well reasoned order and the order is baseless and against the law. He further submits that the trial Court has totally ignored the pleadings of the applicant and not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and record the finding that the applicant is not entitled for maintenance is bad in law. The order passed by the family Court is not a speaking order. The learned family Court has relied upon the chief of the statement of the non applicant and totally ignored the cross examination of his statement where he admitted that he put the lock over the house of applicant, only the Rs.1000/- pension is getting by the applicant and there is no any other work of him. The learned family Court has ignored that the shop and house of the applicant has been acquired by the respondent and shop is mutated in his name by playing of 4 fraught and for the same a civil suit is going on between them, thereafter dismissal of application is bad in law. At the time of deciding the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. court would be decide the same as summery proceeding not as the civil proceeding and also keeping the view this provision has been made for welfare of the parties. The learned family Court has hold that the applicant is having the other child but ignoring that the other child is not earring the money they them self depened upon the applicant. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 6. 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving his application. The non-applicant is running a small salon shop and taking care of himself and his two children and wife. Apart from this, he has no other means of income. Whereas the non- applicant is also suffering from financial loss due to the activities of the applicant. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence, and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court has rightly and justifiably passed the impugned judgment. 5 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal