1 2025:CGHC:32967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 166 of 2021 Jayantibai W/o Ravi Aavde, Presently W/o Rajesh Miri Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. I-07, Kodar Colony, Mauharibhantha, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Khedia Bai, W/o Late Jailal Aavde, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Pacheda, Police Station Khallari, Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shashank Aavde, S/o Ravi Aavde, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian - Khediya Bai, W/o Jailal Aavde Respondent No.1 (Grand Mother) R/o Village Pacheda, Police Station Khallari, Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ravi Aavde, S/o Jailal Aavde, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Pacheda, Police Station Khallari, Tahsil District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsle for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on I.A. No.01/2021, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 697 days in filing the instant revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2021 i.e. application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.75/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 and directed the respondent No.3 / Ravi Aavde to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 / Shashank Aavde and directed the applicant / Jayantibai to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2 / Shashank Aavde towards maintenance. 4. Prosecution story in brief is that the respondent No. 1 (grandmother) filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking maintenance for her grandson, respondent No. 2 3 (Shashank Aavde), who is the son of the petitioner (father) and respondent No. 3 (mother). According to the application, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 got married in 2011 and had Shashank Awad. However, when Shashank was just four months old, his parents abandoned him and got remarried to other individuals, leaving him in the care of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1, an elderly lady with no source of income, claimed that she is unable to maintain Shashank and sought maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the parents. The petitioner partially admitted the application and agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance for Shashank. However, respondent No. 3 remained ex-parte throughout the proceedings. 5. The Family Court, after considering the evidence, partly allowed the application filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 and directed the respondent No.3 to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month due to her financial constraints after marrying Rajesh Miri, who is unemployed with two children, and her limited income of Rs.18,000/- per month. The Court failed to consider the applicant’s financial obligations and expenses from her Rs.18,000/- monthly income when awarding Rs.4,000/- to Respondent No. 2. He further submits that the Respondent No. 1 (grandmother) is capable of maintaining 4 herself and Respondent No. 2 (grandchild), making the maintenance award unnecessary, further the primary responsibility for maintaining the child lies with Respondent No. 3 and the application may be a collusive effort between Respondents No. 1 and 3 to extract money from the applicant. He also submits that the Family Court ought to have seen and held that the applicant is a married person and has to maintain her own family. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 9. 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 respondents No.1 and 2 and directed the respondent No.3 / Ravi Aavde to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 / Shashank Aavde and directed the applicant / Jayantibai to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2 / Shashank Aavde towards maintenance observing the statement of Khediya Bai, who stated in her court testimony that the Ravi Aavde is her son, and Jayantibai is her daughter-in-law. They got married about 7 5 years ago and had a son, Shashank Awad, who currently resides with her. Ravi Aavde abandoned his son with the Khediya Bai about a year ago and got remarried to someone named Tulsi Sahu. Similarly, Jayantibai (daughter-in-law) left her son with the Khediya Bai about 4 months ago and got remarried to a person named Rajesh Miri. Khediya Bai is currently taking care of the minor Shashank and stated that the child is often ill, but due to her lack of financial resources, she is unable to provide proper medical treatment. The statement of the Khediya Bai, remains unshaken and un-impeached, and there is no reason to disbelieve it. This clearly establishes that the Shashank Aavde is the minor child of Ravi Aavde and Jayantibai, hence, it is clear that the Shashank Aavde is the minor son of Ravi Aavde and Jayantibai. Khediya Bai is an elderly woman with no source of income. In contrast, Ravi Aavde and Jayantibai, despite being financially capable, have neglected their obligation to maintain their minor child. It is their legal, social, and moral responsibility to provide for the child's maintenance, medical treatment, and education. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that Shashank Aavde is entitled to receive maintenance from the Ravi Aavde and Jayantibai. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 6 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil