1 2025:CGHC:29520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 269 of 2018 Noto Ram S/o Late Vidyadhar Mahkul Aged About 65 Years Caste Mahkul, R/o Village Mudapara, Police Station Pathalgaon , District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Guruwari Bai W/o Noto Ram Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Mudappara, Police Station Pathalgaon, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Govind Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No.107/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has been allowed an application made by the respondent under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 13:12:51 +0530 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent herein had moved an application under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for enhancement of maintenance against the applicant herein/husband claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month stating inter alia that vide order dated 03.03.1997 the learned Family Court has allowed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the wife for grant of maintenance and directed to the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 250/- per month. She further stated that the income and life style of her husband has increased. The period of 20 years has already passed and due to this the maintenance may also be increased. She further stated that her expenses has increased and she does not maintain her in Rs. 250/- as granted earlier. She has no independent source of income to maintain herself. Her husband has agriculture lands. After receiving the notice from the learned Family Court, the applicant/husband filed his return denying the contention put forth by the applicant except the admitted facts stating inter-alia that he is unable to maintain himself due to his old age and has no income and is unable to do any work. He has gone jail for many times due to not depositing maintenance amount. He has no separate agriculture land. After hearing the argument of the parties and after due consideration, the learned Family Court vide its order dated 11.01.2018 has been partly allowed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the wife for enhancement of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. The applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Court of Judge of 3 Family Court, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.), prefer the instant revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the learned Family Court has erred by allowing an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for enhancement of maintenance, because, the respondent/wife has independent source of income and is able to maintain herself and this facts have been duly proved by the applicant. The applicant is unable to maintain himself due to his old age and has no income and is unable to do any work. He has gone jail for many times due to not depositing maintenance amount. He has no separate agriculture land. He further submits that the wife is living separately without any sufficient reason and therefore, she is not entitled to get maintenance. Looking to the above circumstances of the case the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has erred by holding that the respondent/wife is living separately with sufficient reasons, but there are ample and sufficient reasons are available on records, which has not been properly considered by the learned Family Court while passing the impugned order. Further, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 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 vide order dated 03.03.1997 the learned Family Court has allowed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the wife for grant of maintenance and directed to the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 250/- per month. The respondent/wife further stated that the income and life style of her husband has 4 increased. The period of 20 years has already passed and due to this the maintenance may also be increased. She further stated that her expenses has increased and she does not maintain her in Rs. 250/- as granted earlier. She has no independent source of income to maintain herself. As per above, the application of the respondent/wife was found to be acceptable. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the said order. 6. Considering the submissions 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti