Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33918 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 801 of 2025 1 - Anil Kumar Khewar S/o Mehanguram Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Sayed Baba Mazar, Krishna Nagar, Supela, Tahsil And District AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Durg C.G. 2 - Manish Kumar Khewar S/o Mehnguram Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Sayed Baba Mazar, Krishna Nagar, Supela, Tahsil And District Durg C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Manhguram S/o Shri Bhodaram Aged About 66 Years Present Address Ramnarayan Dahre House No. 97, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg C.G. 2 - Vijay Kumar Khewar S/o Shri Mehanguram Khewar Aged About 38 Years R/o Ramnarayan Dhahre, House No. 97, Vaishali Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal 2 Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.373/2019, whereby, learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.1 / Manhguram and directed Vijay Kumar Khewar to pay Rs.1,500/- per month, Anil Kumar Khewar to pay Rs.1,500/- per month and Manish Kumar Khewar to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 / Manhguram towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent No.1 purchased a residential plot in Krishna Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, and constructed a two-story house where he lived with his wife, Dashmat Bai, respondent No.2, applicant No.1 and applicant No.2. Respondent No. 2 operates a grocery store, and applicant No. 2 runs a medical store on the ground floor of the same building. The respondent No.1 also purchased a commercial plot from Bhilai-Durg Development Authority on March 2, 1995, in his wife's name, where applicant No. 1 operates an atta chaki business. The respondent No.1 alleges that his sons, applicant No. 1 and 2, began mistreating him and his wife after their marriage, demanding they vacate the premises. On November 5, 2017, an altercation occurred between the respondent No.1 and applicant No. 1, resulting in injuries to the respondent No.1. Despite this, no action was taken. Further incidents of abuse and violence were reported, including an incident on July 11, 2018, where applicant No. 2 assaulted the respondent No.1 with his father-in-law. The respondent No.2, 3 applicant Nos. 1 & 2 locked the respondent No.1 out of his house, leading to a police complaint. The authorities intervened, and the respondent No.2, applicant Nos. 1 & 2 left the premises after counseling. However, on August 15, 2018, the respondent No.2, applicant Nos. 1 & 2 physically assaulted the respondent No.1 again, leaving him injured. The respondent No.1's medical documents, bank passbooks, and cheque books were seized by the respondent No.2, applicant Nos. 1 & 2, hindering his access to medical care and finances. The respondent No.1 claims that he is unable to earn due to old age and that the respondent No.2, applicant Nos. 1 & 2 are financially capable of supporting him. Respondent No.2 earns Rs.15,000-20,000/- per month from his grocery store, applicant No.2 earns Rs.25,000-30,000/- from his medical store, and Dashmat Bai earns a similar amount from her atta chaki business. The respondent No.1 requested a monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- from the respondent No.2, applicant Nos. 1 & 2. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties granted monthly maintenance to the respondent No.1 as aforementioned. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court committed an illegality in awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,500/- to respondent No. 1, which is excessive, without considering the actual financial needs of respondent No. 1 and the financial capacity of the applicants..He further submits that respondent No. 1, being a retired BSP 4 employee, possesses sufficient financial resources for his livelihood. Notably, the Family Court overlooked the fact that respondent No. 1 is already providing maintenance to his wife, the applicants' mother, which itself indicates that respondent No. 1 has a stable source of income. Conversely, the applicants lack sufficient earning capacity. It appears that respondent No. 1, in collusion with respondent No. 2, filed this application with malicious intent. He also submits that The applicants are supporting their mother, and respondent No. 1 has filed this maintenance application with the intention of harassing them. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.1 / Manhguram and directed Vijay Kumar Khewar to pay Rs.1,500/- per month, Anil Kumar Khewar to pay Rs.1,500/- per month and Manish Kumar Khewar to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 / Manhguram towards maintenance considering the entire evidence and facts presented, the Family Court found that the respondent No.1 is incapable of maintaining himself. It is undisputed that the respondent No.2 and applicant Nos1 & 2 are the respondent No.1’s children. Respondent No. 2 is taking care of the respondent No.1 and providing for his upkeep. Applicant No.1 is supporting his mother 5 and receiving Rs.12,500/-, which indicates his ability to earn. Considering him a skilled laborer, his monthly income is estimated to be Rs.15,000/-. Applicant No. 2 operates a medical store. Based on the analysis of the evidence, the Family Court concluded that respondent No.1 has successfully proven his entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record, if any to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil