1 CGHC010118112025 2026:CGHC:36255 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 467 of 2025 Jwala Prasad Tamrakar S/o Late Krishna Kumar Tamrakar Aged About 50 Years R/o Tamer Para, Ward No. 13, Dhamdha, Tehsil- Dhamdha And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Prabha Devi Tamrakar W/o Shri Krishna Kumar Tamrakar Aged About 70 Years R/o Tamer Para, Ward No. 13, Dhamdha, Tahsil- Dhamdha And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been /led by the applicant with the following prayer: “In view of the facts mentioned above, the petitioner does hereby most respectfully pray with this hon'ble Court to please quash & set aside the order impugned dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Ld. III Additional Principal Judge (Ranju Routrai), Family Court, Durg, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 District: Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Miscellaneous Case No.381/2020.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent she is the mother of the applicant and is also known by the name Smt. Bhishma Bai. It was pleaded that she is an aged woman su5ering from diabetes and hypertension and is undergoing treatment at Ramakrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, for which she incurs approximately Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month towards medicines and other medical expenses. It was further alleged that despite being her son, the applicant was not providing her proper care, food, clothing or /nancial assistance and that she was somehow residing with her elder son Durga Prasad. The respondent further alleged that she had no independent source of income and was incapable of maintaining herself, whereas the applicant was working as a stamp vendor and document writer at Tehsil O;ce, Dhamdha and was earning approximately Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month, and therefore sought maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. In her a;davit regarding assets and liabilities furnished in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, the respondent disclosed her educational quali/cation as Class X and stated that she had no income or independent occupation. 3. The applicant, in his reply, admitted the relationship with the respondent but denied the remaining allegations and submitted that he had been bearing the expenses of her treatment and medical 3 care. He alleged that the respondent’s elder son, Durga Prasad, was keeping her with an intention to obtain her property and was attempting to procure a Will in his favour. The applicant further stated that although he was earlier earning his livelihood as a document writer at Tehsil O;ce, Dhamdha, his licence was cancelled pursuant to a false complaint made by Durga Prasad, due to which he was presently unemployed and had no regular source of income and was earning by doing labour work for maintaining himself and his family. It was also pleaded that the respondent and her elder son were in possession and enjoyment of certain agricultural properties belonging to the respondent and that Durga Prasad was operating a tent house and earning su;cient income. The applicant further contended that despite his /nancial di;culties, he had always discharged his responsibilities towards his parents and had borne the expenses relating to the treatment and last rites of his father. The applicant also alleged that he had been living separately from the family for several years and that the respondent and her elder son had subjected his wife to harassment by demanding that she bring Rs.5,00,000/- from her parental family towards the respondent’s medical treatment. In his a;davit regarding assets and liabilities, the applicant disclosed his educational quali/cation as Class XII and stated that he was presently unemployed and had no income. 4. After considering the pleadings, rival submissions, a;davits regarding assets and liabilities and the material available on record, the learned Family Court observed that the respondent had no 4 independent source of income and was unable to maintain herself, whereas the applicant, despite disclosing himself as unemployed, was found to have the capacity to contribute towards the maintenance of his aged mother. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent’s age and health condition, her medical and maintenance requirements and the /nancial capacity of the applicant, the learned Family Court found it just and proper to award maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent. Accordingly, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed and the applicant was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent towards her maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present applicant has preferred the instant revision before this Hon’ble Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent without properly appreciating the evidence and material available on record. It is submitted that the respondent has su;cient means and resources to maintain herself and that the evidence of the respondent’s own witnesses clearly establishes that she is possessed of su;cient /nancial resources and is not wholly dependent upon the applicant for her maintenance. She further submits that the medical expenses claimed by the respondent on account of alleged treatment for hypertension and diabetes have been highly exaggerated and have not been duly established by reliable evidence or supporting material, and therefore, the same 5 could not have been made the basis for determining the quantum of maintenance. It is further contended that the applicant is presently unemployed, has no regular source of income and is himself struggling to meet his basic necessities, yet the learned Family Court has failed to properly consider his actual /nancial condition and earning capacity. She submits that the /ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are not supported by cogent evidence or proper appreciation of the material on record and the impugned order appears to have been passed on considerations which are not borne out from the evidence. It is, therefore, submitted that the order awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month is erroneous and unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District - Durg, (C.G.). 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the a;davits regarding assets and liabilities and the rival submissions, has rightly adjudicated the application preferred by the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned 6 Court below has duly considered the admitted relationship between the parties, the advanced age and health condition of the respondent, her alleged medical requirements and absence of any independent source of income, as well as the /nancial position and earning capacity of the applicant. The learned Family Court has also considered the respective a;davits furnished by the parties in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, wherein the respondent disclosed that she had no income or independent occupation, while the applicant claimed to be unemployed. However, upon appreciation of the material available on record, the learned Court below found that the applicant, being the son of the respondent and having no established physical or other incapacity to earn, could not completely evade his statutory and moral obligation to maintain his aged mother. The learned Family Court, while determining the quantum, has taken into account the respondent’s health condition, her reasonable maintenance and medical requirements, the overall circumstances of the parties and the /nancial capacity of the applicant, and has awarded a moderate amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards her maintenance. The amount so awarded cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate, particularly having regard to the respondent’s age and necessities. Thus, the impugned order reCects proper application of mind and due appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record. 7 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the /nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in/rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a certi/ed copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan