JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State. 3. Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. 4. This criminal revision application has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Miscellaneous Case No.81/2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge has allowed the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the Opposite Party No.2 and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,500/- per month to his mother with effect from filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. w.e.f. the filing of the case i.e. 24.09.2013 and has directed the petitioner to pay @ Rs.4,500/- per month till realization of the arrears. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 is the step-mother of the petitioner and she has three more sons who are earning members, but instead of making any claim of maintenance against them, she has chosen the present petitioner only to maintain her. He further submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 is also getting pension from the Government. He submitted that considering this aspect of the matter, the impugned order of maintenance is not in accordance with law and calls for interference. The learned counsel submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, in case this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, then some installments may be fixed for payment of the arrears so that the petitioner also does not suffer from much financial burden. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Parties 6. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the present petitioner was given compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father and in fact, the Opposite Party No.2 has brought up the present petitioner and as per the impugned order, the salary of the present petitioner in 2014 was at least in the range of Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month and accordingly, the learned court below has given only a meager amount of Rs. 3,500/- per month as maintenance to the Opposite Party No.2. The learned counsel also submitted that the person who gets compassionate appointment in lieu of his father’s employment has a legal obligation to maintain the dependents of his father and admittedly, the Opposite Party No.2 is the mother of the petitioner, though step-mother. The learned counsel submitted that merely because the Opposite Party No.2 is the step-mother of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot escape from his obligation to maintain her. The learned counsel submitted that so far as the pension received by the Opposite Party No.2 from the government is concerned, this fact has already been considered by the learned court below and the pension being received by Opposite Party No.2 from the government is a meager amount which has been held to be insufficient for her maintenance. The learned counsel also referred to Section 22 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and submitted that the petitioner being a successor of the property of his father is under a corresponding liability to maintain all the dependents of his father including the Opposite Party No.2. 7. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party-State submitted that only a small amount has been given to the Opposite Party No.2 as compared to the salary of the petitioner and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and therefore, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel submitted that he has got no serious objection if any installment is fixed for the purposes of payment of the arrears of maintenance amount. Findings of this Court 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that on 24.09.2013, the Opposite Party No. 2 namely, Most. Adhiniti Devi filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa with a prayer to direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to her. This Court further finds the admitted facts of the case that the Opposite Party No.2 is the widow of Late Ram Sundar Sao who died while working as ‘Blaster’ in B.S.L. Plant at Bhawnathpur leaving behind him his wife, four sons and one daughter. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to her. This Court further finds the admitted facts of the case that the Opposite Party No.2 is the widow of Late Ram Sundar Sao who died while working as ‘Blaster’ in B.S.L. Plant at Bhawnathpur leaving behind him his wife, four sons and one daughter. After death of Ram Sundar Sao, the petitioner, born from the wedlock of Ram Sundar Sao with his first wife, got employment on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father. The petitioner’s deceased father had solemnized marriage with the Opposite Party No.2 after death of his first wife and as such, Opposite Party No.2 is the step-mother of the petitioner. 9. Before the learned court below, the applicant (Opposite Party No. 2 herein) examined altogether three witnesses and also proved her treatment papers as Exhibit-1. PW-1 (Dinesh Ram) and PW-2 (Ramesh Prasad) are the sons of the Opposite Party No.2 and PW-3 is the Opposite Party No.2 herself. The Opposite Party No.2 supported her case with regard to employment of the petitioner on compassionate ground and his salary and also her undergoing treatment. She admitted that the petitioner was paying Rs.2,000/- per month before 2011, but he stopped the payment in 2011. She further admitted that she is step mother of the petitioner and is getting Rs.594/- only as pension as a dependent of her husband. On the other hand, the petitioner examined altogether two witnesses, OPW-1 (Ashok Prasad) is his step brother and OPW-2 is the petitioner himself. The petitioner has exhibited his salary slip for the month of January, 2006 as Exhibit-A and his salary slip for the month of February, 2009 as Exhibit-A/1. 10. The learned court below scrutinized all the evidences, both oral and documentary, and, in Para-8, assessed the income of the petitioner in the year 2014 to be at least in the range of Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month. The learned court below in Para-10 recorded that the Opposite Party No.2 admittedly gets Rs.594/- per month as pension which is not sufficient to meet the expenses of her maintenance, specially treatment, etc. The learned court below further recorded that the petitioner gets salary against his compassionate appointment, to which the first claim was of the wife, not son and further recorded that the Opposite Party is not ready to live with the petitioner and the reasons have been explained by her. 11. The learned court below further recorded that the petitioner gets salary against his compassionate appointment, to which the first claim was of the wife, not son and further recorded that the Opposite Party is not ready to live with the petitioner and the reasons have been explained by her. 11. This Court further finds that the learned court below has found that the Opposite Party No.2 is aged about 60 Years and is also undergoing her treatment and she needs money for her treatment also. The learned court below was of the view that the Opposite Party No.2 is unable to maintain herself and she is not being maintained by the present petitioner. This Court further finds that the learned court below has awarded maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,500/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 w.e.f. the filing of the case i.e. 24.09.2013 and has directed the petitioner to pay @ Rs.4,500/- per month till realization of the arrears. 12. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to point out any error of law or any perversity in the impugned order and the points raised by the petitioner before this Court have already been properly considered and rejected by the learned court below by a well-reasoned order considering both oral and documentary evidences and all the aspects of the matter. The argument of the petitioner that the Opposite Party no. 2 also has her own sons and she should claim maintenance from them is also not sustainable as the petitioner had got compassionate appointment after death of his father and therefore, he is under legal obligation to maintain the Opposite Party No. 2 as well who is admittedly his step mother. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court, under its revisional jurisdiction, finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and accordingly, the present criminal revision application is hereby dismissed. 14. From perusal of the records of this criminal revision, it transpires that this Court, vide order dated 06.01.2015, has observed that if the petitioner deposits Rs.27,000/- in the learned court below as a part of the maintenance amount in favour of the Opposite Party No.2 and shall keep on paying 50% of the maintenance amount to her from 06.01.2015, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 15. 15. In view of the order dated 06.01.2015 passed by this Court, the amount of Rs.27,000/-, if deposited by the petitioner before the learned court below, is directed to be released in favour of the opposite party no. 2 after due identification. Further, on account of interim orders passed by this court regarding current payment some amount of arrears have accumulated. Accordingly, the petitioner would pay the current maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,500/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 by 10th calendar day of every succeeding month as directed by the learned court below and also pay the accumulated arrears of maintenance in installments of Rs.5,000/- per month till full payment of the total arrear amount accrued till date, to the Opposite Party No.2. 16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 18. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX/Email”.