1 2025:CGHC:30227 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 340 of 2018 Ashish Kumar Saroj S/o Shri Raghuvar Prasad Saroj Aged About 38 Years Caste Pasi, R/o Ward No. 6, Katahal Para, West Chirmiri Colliery, Pondi, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Ratna Saroj W/o Shri Ashish Kumar Saroj Aged About 32 Years Caste Pasi, R/o Sarkari Dafai, Ward No. 22, Chhota Bazar, Chirmiri Police Station Chirmiri, Khadgaon District Korea Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Soumya Saroj D/o Shri Ashish Kumar Saroj Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Her Mother, Smt. Ratna Saroj ( Respondent No. 1) W/o Shri Ashish Kumar Saroj, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sarkari Dafai, Ward No. 22, Chhota Bazar, Chirmiri Police Station Chirmiri, Khadgaon District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.05 14:49:25 +0530 2 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “(I) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case for it's kind perusal; (ii) The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 03.02.2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 39/2017 (M.C.C. No. 62/2017) and the application filed by the respondents (the applicants) under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case that on 05.02.2016, the application filed by the respondentsunder Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was disposed of vide order dated 05.02.2016 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 113/2015, whereby the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance to respondent No. 2. On 17.05.2017, the respondents filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 39/2017. The case of the respondents, in 3 substance, is that inflation has doubled, and since respondent No. 2 is about to get admission in school, the amount of maintenance granted vide order dated 05.02.2016 is insufficient and is liable to be enhanced. 4. The applicant filed a reply opposing the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, submitted by the respondents, contending, in substance, that the amount of maintenance was fixed on the basis of a compromise, and therefore, there is no scope for enhancement. It was further submitted that there has been no increase in inflation, and respondent No. 2 is not of the age to get admission in school. The applicant also denied the allegation that he is earning a salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. It was further submitted that the applicant has to bear the expenses of maintaining his father and brother, and he is also repaying loans taken for the treatment of his mother and for the marriage of his sister. Therefore, the application filed by the respondents under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is liable to be dismissed. 5. On 03.02.2018, the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.), passed an order allowing the application filed by the respondents under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and enhanced the amount of maintenance payable to respondent No. 1from Rs. 1,500/- per month to Rs. 4,000/- per month, and the amount of maintenance payable to respondent No. 2 from Rs. 1,500/- per month to Rs. 2,000/- per month. 4 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 03.02.2018 is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. The impugned order dated 03.02.2018 has been passed without considering the material available on record. He submits that the amount of maintenance was fixed on the basis of a compromise, and therefore, there is no scope for enhancement. The respondents have produced no evidence to show that the income of the applicant has increased, and therefore, the application filed by the respondents under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the applicant has to bear the expenses incurred in the maintenance of his father and brother, and furthermore, he has to repay loans obtained for the treatment of his mother and for the marriage of his sister. Therefore, the application filed by the respondents under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is liable to be dismissed. He also submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for the enhancement of the maintenance allowance. Even otherwise, the enhanced amount of maintenance is excessive in nature. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the 5 price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek