Ravindra Kumar S/o Vijendra Kumar Tiwari Aged About 39 Years R/o Navdha Chowk Kurda v. 1 - Vijendra Kumar Tiwari S/o Netram Aged About 65 Years Caste Brahman, R/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 936 of 2018 Ravindra Kumar S/o Vijendra Kumar Tiwari Aged About 39 Years R/o Navdha Chowk Kurda, Police Station Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Vijendra Kumar Tiwari S/o Netram Aged About 65 Years Caste Brahman, R/o Village Kurda, Police Station Champa, District Jangir Champa Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
2 - Smt. Gangotri Tiwari W/o Vijendra Kumar Aged About 59 Years Caste Brahman, R/o Village Kurda, Police Station Champa, District Jangir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Satish Kumar S/o Vijendra Kumar Tiwari Aged About 32 Years R/o Near House Of Rajesh Sharma, Village Kurda, Police Station Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.06.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, learned counsel for the respondents. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 06- 07-2018 (Annexure A/1) learned Judge Family Court Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in M.C.C.No. 44/17 in the case titled Vijendra Kumar Tiwari & others Vs. Ravindra Kumar & others, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the present petition arises from a maintenance dispute wherein respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are the aged parents of the applicant, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance from him. An ex-parte order dated 11.07.2017 was initially passed, awarding ₹2,000/- each to respondent nos. 1 and 2, which was later set aside. It is alleged that the applicant, employed as a Shikshakarmi Grade-II in a government school at Mahuda with a salary of ₹32,000–₹35,000 per month, used to quarrel with and mistreat the respondents, who reside in a rented house with no independent income. However, the applicant submits that his wife is suffering from breast cancer and that the respondents pressured him to abandon her, leading to family conflict. He claims to have been adopted by his childless uncle and aunt (with the consent of respondent nos. 1 and 2), with whom he shared a joint bank account. The applicant further contends that respondent no. 1 owns 2.75 acres of agricultural land at Village Kurda and has already sold a portion of it for ₹40 lakhs, depositing substantial amounts in bank accounts from which he 3 earns significant monthly interest. The respondents are living comfortably with their younger son (respondent no. 3), who has also acquired property in his wife’s name. The applicant asserts that multiple legal proceedings have been initiated by the respondents to harass him, and he is financially burdened with a ₹9 lakh debt for his wife’s medical treatment. Therefore, he claims he is not in a position to pay monthly maintenance and that the application filed by the respondents is motivated by malice. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that The impugned order awarding maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month to respondent nos. 1 and 2 is erroneous in law and fact and is not sustainable. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that under Section 125(1)(d) Cr.P.C., maintenance can only be awarded to parents who are unable to maintain themselves. In the present case, the respondents are financially well-off, owning agricultural land and having sold a portion of it for ₹40 lakhs, from which respondent no. 1 deposited a substantial amount in the bank and earns regular interest. They currently reside with their younger son (respondent no. 3), and documentary evidence, including land records and invitation cards, demonstrate their financial independence and cohabitation with respondent no. 3. Furthermore, the applicant was adopted in childhood by his uncle and aunt (the brother and sister-in-law of respondent no. 1) and has been maintaining the aunt since his uncle’s death. The maintenance application appears to have been filed out of property-related disputes, intending to harass the applicant. Moreover, the 4 applicant’s wife is undergoing expensive cancer treatment, for which he has incurred debts and is financially strained. Despite these circumstances, the Family Court overlooked the applicant’s obligations, financial liabilities, and the respondents’ independent means. Therefore, the order granting maintenance deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the order of maintenance in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2, considering their age, lack of independent income, and the statutory obligation of the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to maintain his parents. The Court correctly assessed that the applicant, being employed as a Shikshakarmi Grade-II earning ₹32,000–₹35,000 per month, is financially capable of supporting his elderly parents, who are residing in a rented house and facing hardship. The applicant’s claims regarding property transactions and financial status of the respondents were not sufÏciently substantiated, and the alleged adoption and property disputes do not absolve him of his legal and moral duty. The Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, 5 found the respondents entitled to maintenance, keeping in view the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is to prevent destitution and vagrancy of dependents. 8. Considering the submission 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record of this case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice