1 2025:CGHC:41619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 14 of 2024 1 - Sulochana Jangade W/o Chetan Jangade Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kolihadeeh, Police Station And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Anshu D/o Chetan Jangade Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sulochana Jangade (Applicant No. 1), R/o Village Kolihadeeh, Police Station And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Chetan Jangade S/o Ramprasad Jangade Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kolihadeeh, Police Station And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bishnu Muni, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 30/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay total Rs. 2,500/- per month to the applicant No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the application under Section 127 CrPC for enhancement of maintenance amount to the enhanced from 3,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month. Some of the admitted fact is that earlier the applicants receiving Rs. 3,000/- per month vide order dated 07.03.2019 and thereafter, they filed an application under Section 127 of CrPC for enhancement of the said amount from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicants. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay total Rs. 2,500/- per month to the applicant No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is having 11 acres of agricultural land and cuttre and crops two times in a year and having two tractor and trolley and modern crasher machine and is earning a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- in that field, but despite the said fact the learned Family Court has enhanced the maintenance only Rs.500/- (each) to the applicants which is very low and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings 3 and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar