Anant Kumar Jagatramka S/o. Shri Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka Aged About 51 Years Occupation- Business v. 1. Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka S/o Late
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 537 of 2021 Anant Kumar Jagatramka S/o. Shri Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka Aged About 51 Years Occupation- Business, R/o. Herambh Industries, Shyam Talkies Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus 1. Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal Jagatramka Aged About 75 Years R/o. Shyam Talkies Road, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 2.
Legal Reasoning
warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek
Arguments
Smt. Pratibha Devi Jagatramka (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 09/11/2023 3. Akhilesh Jagatramka S/o. Shri Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka Aged About 48 Years Occupation- Business, R/o. Nayi Sadak, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.17 10:50:54 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.07.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that the revision may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Judge (Family Court Raigarh ) may kindly be set- aside/modified (only in respect to revisioner/non- applicant No. 02), and the application filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 (only in respect to revisioner/non-applicant No. 2) may kindly be rejected, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), seeking grant of maintenance against respondent No. 3(Akhilesh Jagatramka). 4. During the pendency of the above proceedings, the respondents filed an application for amendment in the cause title to implead the applicant as a party and also claimed maintenance from the present applicant. The learned Family Court, Raigarh, allowed the said amendment application, and accordingly, the applicant was arrayed as a party before the trial Court. 5. In the application filed before the Family Court, Raigarh, the applicants pleaded that there was a family arrangement between the applicant and others, wherein respondent No. 3 would take care 3 of and maintain the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (who are the parents of the applicant and respondent No. 3 herein). In consideration of this settlement, the applicant had relinquished his ownership over more than 4 acres of prime land situated in the heart of Raigarh city in favour of respondent No. 3. 6. Even respondent No. 3 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC before the learned Family Court, Raigarh, seeking to implead the applicant as a party. In their reply to the said application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the respondents No. 1 and 2 categorically denied in paragraph no. 3 that respondent No. 3 alone was responsible for maintaining them. The matter travelled to the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (227) No. 836/2018, and by order dated 24/10/2018, the Hon’ble High Court rejected the petition seeking impleadment of the applicant as a party. A copy of the order dated 24/10/2018, passed in W.P. (227) No. 836/2018, is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-2. 7. Despite the above, the learned Family Court thereafter impleaded the applicant without any valid reason and issued notice to him. 8. On 18.08.2021, the learned Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month (Rs. 5,000/- each to respondents No. 1 and 2) from the applicant. The applicant is aggrieved only to the extent of the liability imposed upon him. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial 4 Judge acted with material irregularity and passed the impugned judgment with non-application of mind. It is agreed by the family members, including the respondents No. 1 & 2, that the applicant would relinquish the immovable property (land) in favour of respondent No. 3, who in turn would maintain the respondents No. 1 & 2. The Applicants themselves have pleaded about the relinquishment deed, which is on record. The transfer has been acted upon, and the valuable property has been mutated in the name of respondent No. 3 (the younger brother of the applicant and the son of the respondents No. 1 & 2). He submits that learned Family Court was well aware that the applicant is not at fault. On the contrary, respondent No. 3 is solely liable under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per the family arrangement. The applicant is physically weak, is suffering from illness, and has his own family to maintain. This fact is also within the knowledge of the respondents. The applicant had fairly executed the relinquishment deed dated 28/12/2016, transferring valuable property to respondent No. 3 herein as per the family arrangement made by the respondents No. 1 & 2. He submits that learned Family Court Judge committed a grave error in law and facts by not considering the miserable condition of the applicant, who is struggling to sustain himself and his family, while respondent No. 3 has failed to fulfill his duty to maintain the respondents even after receiving valuable property in consideration of such responsibility. He submits that learned Family Court arrived at an erroneous conclusion while passing the impugned judgment (Annexure A/1). In the present 5 case, the learned Family Court ought to have rejected the application for maintenance filed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 against the applicant in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and this Hon’ble Court in a series of cases, as well as the letter and spirit of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect and safeguard the interests of destitute wives, children, and parents who are neglected or refused maintenance by the person against whom they claim. The section, being beneficial legislation, is a measure of social justice enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep. Its object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation he owes to society in respect of his parents, wife, and children so that they are not left destitute, beggared, or driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality, or crime for their subsistence. However, the learned Family Court failed to consider this object and, without any substantial or prudent reason, allowed the application for maintenance filed by the respondents. The respondents No. 1 & 2 have misused the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. in this case. He further submits that the findings of the learned Family Court are erroneous, contrary to the material available on record, and are not based on any legal evidence. These findings require reassessment in the interest of justice. 10. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 6 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No. 01 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side