ORDER : 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court being aggrieved by the order dated 25-4-2024 passed by the Family Court Bastar at Jagdalpur in Criminal MJC No 100 of 2023 whereby learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the present petitioner for recall of the order dated 19-2-2020 passed by the learned Family Court in MJC No. 172 of 2019 by which the learned Court has passed ex-parte order of maintenance against the present applicant by directing to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month from 19.02.2020. 2. The facts of the case in brief, are that the father of the petitioner Shri S.P. Mandal who was an employee of National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) stood retired in the year 2007 and after retirement, as per the policy of the NMDC, father of the petitioner was entitled to get pension and at that time he was getting Rs.4000/- per month as family pension. Smt. Sunila Mandal who is respondent herein is the mother of the present applicant, she is a house wife and is residing at Jagdalpur in the house which was constructed by the father of the present petitioner when he was in service. The present applicant is working with NMDC from 2008-2009 and his brother namely Ajay Kumar Mandal (younger brother) is also a Government servant and he is working as Radiographer posted at Community health Centre, Tokapal from 2012. 3. Respondent’s husband died in the year 2017 and after death of her husband, on 6-9-2019 the respondent who is unfortunate mother of the present petitioner has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court for grant of maintenance which was registered as MJC No 172 of 2019. The said application was allowed by the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur by recording its finding that the present petitioner and his brother are in gainful employment and the respondent/mother is now aged about 60 years, therefore, it is not possible for her to maintain and accordingly learned Family Court has allowed the application vide order dated 19.02.2020 directing payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance. 15,000/- per month as maintenance. The learned Family Court while allowing the application has also considered the fact that the respondent/mother while examining herself before the trial Court has stated that her elder son Sanjay Kumar Mandal (applicant) has sold the land bearing Khasra No. 202/5 area 0.101/0, 025 acres (25 decimal) for Rs.9,00,000/- and the entire money was kept with him. She has also stated that five cheques were given to her but the same could not be encashed. Since she has no source of income, therefore, she was compelled to file an application under Section 125 of the CRPC before the Family Court for grant of maintenance. Accordingly, learned Family Court vide order dated 19-9-2020 has granted maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month which was an ex-parte order. 4. Thereafter, on 17-1-2022 present petitioner has filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order wherein the petitioner has stated that he is working in NMDC, and getting Rs. 55,000/- per month towards salary out of which he is required to pay Rs. 9,000/- towards car loan, Rs.14,000/- towards home loan and Rs. 20,000/- towards insurance loan and revision was filed before this court which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 271 of 2022 and the said application was dismissed by this Court on 21.07.2022 (Annexure A/9) granting liberty to the applicant to file an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned trial Court considering the submissions has rejected the application for setting aside the order passed on 19-2-2020 vide its order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure A/1). The applicant has challenged both these orders before this Court by filing this revision petition on 05.06.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has two children, he has to look after them and therefore, he has more difficulties also to maintain his family. He would further submit that the impugned order was passed without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it was passed on the basis of the documents produced by the respondent without any enquiry and also ignoring the fact that the younger brother of the petitioner namely Ajay Kumar Mandal is also an employee of the State Government working as Radiographer in Community Health Centre Tokapal, therefore, the liability should be proportionately distributed between both the brothers. He would further submit that the amount awarded by the learned Family Court is on higher side, therefore, he would pray for quashing of the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 7. Before dealing with the factual matrix of the case, this Court thinks proper to go through the object and purpose of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. From the object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. it is quite vivid that the object for grant of maintenance to such helpless mother would be a motherly act and would be in consonance with the social object of providing maintenance to the destitute widow of Hindu Community and the crucial question for directing for grant of maintenance is to whether she can maintain herself without support of others, if the answer is no, then she is definitely entitled to get maintenance. Taking into consideration the object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the reality of helpless widow living separately, this Court lend its hand in larger interest of attending the fulfillment of parental obligation to maintain and bringing up the children during the childhood of the children. The son cannot therefore ask to be relieved from the statutory obligation on any such consideration. This moral and emotional earthquake of the son is capable of collapsing homes, weakling values, staring families and threatening the crack upon very foundation of our Indian Culture. In highly sophisticated computer age this is message of gloom and doom without single word of hope as the petitioner is scratching his old scars. His unmindful good numbers of things because of his mother, he has seen this beautiful world. Parents give such child name, places, the child in a social class and give national and religious identity. Parents plugs child into society in which he/she will live and grow, but by denying the such maintenance to old age mother by the son will definitely not against law, but morality also. Keeping this aspect of the matter now this Court is examine the factual matrix of this case. 8. Parents plugs child into society in which he/she will live and grow, but by denying the such maintenance to old age mother by the son will definitely not against law, but morality also. Keeping this aspect of the matter now this Court is examine the factual matrix of this case. 8. Considering the fact that the respondent who is mother of the present applicant is aged about 63 years and it is very difficult for her to maintain herself and the medical expenditure requires to be paid for old aged person and also considering the cost of living is required for maintenance of old woman, I am of the view that the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court cannot be said to be on higher side and so far as submission of the petitioner is that he has some personal difficulties, this cannot be a ground to deny the right of the mother who is aged about 63 years and she was compelled to knock the door of the court for grant of maintenance in a such circumstances and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity which warrants interference by this Court. 9. This submission of the petitioner that his younger brother should also be responsible for maintaining respondent mother, also deserves to be rejected by this Court as the petitioner has nowhere denied the fact that he has received Rs. 9,00,000/- by selling property of land bearing Khasra No. 202/5 area 0.101/0, 025 acres (25 decimal) and that amount is kept with him only and the cheques given by him have been bounced. Even otherwise, in NMDC the medical facilities are being provided by the Corporation to its employees. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a situation which requires for this Court to reduce the amount of maintenance awarded to respondent. 10. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, I am of the view that no interference is required by this court. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.