APPLICANT RESPONDENTS ’1 Appearance: Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate for ORAL ORDER (29.07.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA J. Heard. Petitionerlson has tiled this petition against the. order dated 14.07.2011 passed by Fami1y Court, Bilaspur, whereunder a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month has been awarded as interim maintenance to respondent No.2/mother of, the petitioner. The Family Court'while disposing the application for interim maintenance has refused to-grant any interim maintenance to the father/respondent No.1 by giving reason in para 6 of the impugned order, however, on considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court directed that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. No.2lmother as interim maintenance. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 41 6/2011 Vinod Kumar Tiwari, S/o Rajaram Tiwari, Aged about 37 years, R/o Ashok Nagar, present Planning Office, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil & District— Biiaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Rajaram Tiwari, Slo Late Narmada Prasad Tiwari, aged about 66 years, Smt. Pramila Tiwari, W/o Shri Rajaram Tiwari, aged about 58 years, Both Rio Ashok Nagar, in front of Electricity. Office, Sarkanda P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsii & District-Biiaspur (C .G.). the petitioner. \ 2,500/- per month to respondent HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 3971401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 2 CRIMINAL REVISDN NO. 416i2011 Ms. Sunita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that respondent No.1 has his separate earning and respondent no.2 would be primarily dependant on respondent Nor1, therefore, interim maintenance would not have been granted in favour of respondent No.2/mother against the petitioner/son. i have gone through the contents of the entire order passed by the Family Court. The Family Court has given reasons for not granting interim maintenance to the father and has also given cogent reasons for granting interim maintenance to the mother. The relationships between the parties are not disputed and it is also not disputed that respondent No.2 is aged about 58 years. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, l do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The revision. therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rahul