1 CGHC010228082026 2026:CGHC:28886 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 858 of 2026 Rampyari Dubey W/o Late Shri Janakdhari Aged About 78 Years R/o Atal Awas, Lalmatiya, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Suman Dubey W/o Suman Prasad Dubey @ Sumen Prasad Dubey Aged About 38 Years R/o B 1/41, Jungle Side, Banki Mongra, Post And Police Station Banki Mongra, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10 /07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01/2026, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 44 days in filing the present criminal revision. 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2026 i.e. application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by learned Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Case No. unregistered/2026, whereby, the learned Family Court dismissed the application under Section 144 of BNSS filed by the respondent/wife. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant was employed in the SECL Delwadih Project and, upon being declared medically unfit, nominated her son, Suman Prasad Dubey @ Sumen Prasad Dubey, for compassionate appointment. Pursuant to such nomination, her son was appointed on compassionate grounds in SECL. In accordance with the applicable service rules, he maintained the applicant for some time, but subsequently failed to provide her maintenance. Consequently, the applicant approached the SECL Management as well as the Family Court, Katghora, seeking maintenance. Pursuant to the order passed by the Family Court, the applicant's son paid maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month until his death on 22.12.2023. After the death of the applicant's son, compassionate appointment was granted to the respondent, who is the widow of the deceased employee. The applicant alleges that despite being appointed on compassionate grounds, the respondent failed to 3 provide maintenance to her. It is further alleged that the applicant also lost the benefit of free medical treatment available through the departmental hospital and, being without any independent source of income, has been compelled to incur medical expenses by borrowing money. Aggrieved by the non-payment of maintenance, the applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Family Court, Katghora, seeking maintenance from the respondent. However, by order dated 30.01.2026, the learned Family Court dismissed the application at the threshold without registering the case, holding that Section 144 of the BNSS does not contemplate a claim for maintenance by a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said order, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the principal grievance of the applicant is that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the facts and settled principles of law. It is submitted that the Court below failed to appreciate that the applicant, who was earlier employed in SECL, had been declared medically unfit and, upon her nomination, her son was granted compassionate appointment. Pursuant to the order of the Family Court, the son regularly paid maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant until his demise on 22.12.2023. He further submits that after the death of 4 the applicant's son, the respondent, being his widow, was granted compassionate appointment in SECL. As per the applicable departmental rules, the person appointed on compassionate grounds is obliged to maintain the dependent family members of the deceased employee. Therefore, the respondent is under a legal and moral obligation to provide maintenance to the applicant. He also submits that the applicant is an aged and destitute woman having no independent source of income and is dependent upon others even for her medical expenses. The learned Family Court failed to consider these material facts and erroneously dismissed the application at the threshold, despite the applicant's claim being based on the compassionate appointment originally arising from her own employment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court dismissed the application under Section 144 of BNSS filed by the respondent/wife, holding that the provisions of Section 144 of BNSS confer the right to claim maintenance only upon a wife, children and parents against the husband, father or son, and do not provide for a claim of maintenance by a mother- in-law against her daughter-in-law. Consequently, the learned Family Court held that the application was not maintainable, declined to register the case and rejected it at the threshold. 5 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil