1 2025:CGHC:36882 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 312 of 2020 Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramadhar Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Sahu Auto Centre, Near Sonu Juice , Pahadi Chowk , Gudhiyari, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Late Shri Ramadhar Sahu Aged About 69 Years R/o Pahadi Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur , Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by learned Family Court Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.123/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent is aged and has four sons, whom she raised and made capable. She built houses and shops for all four sons and distributed her assets among them. However, as two of the sons, the applicant, started earning more, he began living separately from the family, managed their finances independently, and distanced themselves from their mother. After the respondent’s husband passed away on August 28, 2009, the applicant stopped communicating with her. The respondent then started living with her son Narendra Sahu. The respondent’s health began to deteriorate, and she developed conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart issues, for which she underwent treatment. She spent Rs. 2,60,000/- on her treatment and Rs. 56,000/- on eye treatment. Her monthly expenses are around Rs. 50-60 thousand, including insulin. Currently, her son Narendra and daughter-in-law Tanmeshwari take care of her, and sometimes her middle son, Krishna Kumar Sahu, also looks after her. The respondent has no source of income now. The applicant is financially capable, earning Rs. 10,000-10,000/- per day. The respondent has prayed for a total maintenance amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the respondent. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the learned Family Court committed a significant error in holding that the respondent had proved her case beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that the learned Court should have considered the financial status of the applicant, who is not in a position to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Moreover, the Court should have appreciated the fact that the respondent is receiving a pension amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He also submits that no document was produced by the respondent to prove her medical expenses and the respondent also failed to deduce or establish the applicant's monthly salary. 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.3,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that statements of witness, Kesari Sahu, has stated that when the respondent fell ill, he would visit her, but he never saw the applicant and other sons at the hospital. He also never saw the applicant and other sons or their wives taking care of the respondent. The statements of the respondent and her witness have not been rebutted during cross-examination. This evidence clearly indicates that the applicant and other sons started living 4 separately after their income increased, failed to provide maintenance, and distanced themselves from their mother, the respondent, after their father's death are not providing maintenance to her. He further observed that the statement of Sanjay Kumar Sahu, who does not prove that he lives separately from his mother due to the small size of the house. In the absence of rebuttal to the respondent’s evidence, it is clearly established that the applicant has failed to provide maintenance and have distanced himself. The respondent is living with her sons Narendra and Krishna, and the applicant is not fulfilling their filial duties. Therefore, it is necessary for the mother to reside with one of her sons. Upon considering the respondent’s statements, it is clear that the respondent is the owner of property. However, it is not established from the evidence of both the parties that the applicant earns income from those properties. Further. after considering the social and economical status of both the 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. 5 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