1 2026:CGHC:21991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 651 of 2026 Laxman Prasad Choudhary S/o Late Bodha Sav Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Tapkara, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Suraj Kumar Choudhary S/o Laxman Prasad Choudhary Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Tapkara, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.05.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “The applicant, therefore humbly and most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.03.2026 (ΑΝΝEXURE A-1) and kindly modify and award the amount of maintenance in favour of the applicant of Rs. 15,000/- per month, in the intersect of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the BNS seeking maintenance from the respondent, who is his son. It is the case of the applicant that he is a resident of Village Tapkara and had purchased land bearing Khasra No. 153/18 admeasuring 0.011 hectare in the name of his deceased wife Sandhiya Choudhary, upon which a restaurant is being operated. It is further stated that after the death of his wife, the applicant solemnized a second marriage with one Sujata Sahu on 24.11.2024 as per social customs and rituals, which was not accepted by the respondent due to strained relations, and thereafter the respondent allegedly forced the applicant to leave the restaurant premises. It is further alleged that on 14.11.2024, the applicant was compelled to execute an agreement whereby the shop, house and restaurant were handed over to the respondent for caretaking and in lieu thereof the respondent agreed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance. However, subsequently, due to financial liabilities arising out of a loan obtained by the respondent from Shriram Finance Company, the respondent allegedly stopped paying the agreed amount, which led the applicant to file the aforesaid maintenance application before the Family Court. After recording evidence, the learned Family Court rejected the application filed by the applicant. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2026 passed by the learned Family Court is 3 bad in law and contrary to the facts and material available on record. It is submitted that the applicant is an aged person of about 56 years and due to his poor health condition he solemnized a second marriage with one Sujata Sahu only for the purpose of care and assistance in his old age. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent/son is an able-bodied and qualified person having sufÏcient source of livelihood and, therefore, it is his legal as well as moral obligation to maintain his father, particularly in view of the agreement dated 14.11.2024 executed between the parties wherein the respondent had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance to the applicant. It is also submitted that merely because the respondent has liability of repayment of loan installments obtained for running the restaurant business, he cannot evade his statutory responsibility to maintain the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Court below failed to properly appreciate the settled principles governing maintenance and also did not consider the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, despite the fact that the respondent has sufÏcient means to maintain the applicant but has deliberately neglected and refused to do so. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly rejected the application preferred by the applicant under Section 144 of the BNS. The learned Court 4 below has properly considered that the dispute between the parties essentially arose due to strained family relations after the applicant solemnized a second marriage with one Sujata Sahu and thereafter disputes arose regarding possession and management of the shop, house and restaurant situated over the land standing in the name of the deceased wife of the applicant. The learned Family Court has also taken into consideration that the respondent is running the restaurant business and is already burdened with repayment of loan liabilities obtained from Shriram Finance Company for the purpose of the said business. The Court below further found that except for the alleged agreement dated 14.11.2024, no cogent and reliable material was placed on record by the applicant to establish that the respondent had deliberately neglected or refused to maintain him as contemplated under law. The learned Family Court has duly appreciated the financial condition and conduct of both parties and after recording proper findings on the basis of evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the applicant failed to establish sufÏcient grounds for grant of maintenance. The findings so recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon proper appreciation of facts and evidence. 6. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan