1 2025:CGHC:36881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 432 of 2020 1 - Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Shri Tularam, Aged About 45 Years R/o Presently Residing At Ujjwal Nagar Savita Vihar B - 72, Seepat N.T.P.C. Seepat, Bilaspur, Police Station Seepat , Sub - Tehsil Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Purnima Lahare D/o Tularam, Aged About 23 Years R/o Presently Residing At Ujjwal Nagar Savita Vihar B - 72, Seepat N.T.P.C. Seepat, Bilaspur, Police Station Seepat , Sub - Tehsil Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Tularam Lahare, S/o Dauram, Aged About 54 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Navadih Chowk Seepat Thana Seepat, Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Through The Chief General Manager N.T.P.C. Seepat Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shujauddin Rajas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate holding the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 brief of Mr. Shujauddin Rajas, learned counsel for the non- applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the modify and enhanced the order dated 25/02/2020 passed by Family Court Principal Judge Bilaspur (C.G.), in Miss. Cri. Case No. 065/2019 Annexure-R/1 in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the non-applicant was solemnized as per Hindu customs, and they lived together until disputes arose. Thereafter, applicant No.1 (wife) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 16.09.2013, registered as Case No. 594/2013, seeking maintenance, and the learned Family Court, vide order dated 22.05.2015, directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 7,500/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs. 3,500/- per month to applicant No.2 on the ground of cruelty and the non-applicant’s income. Subsequently, the applicants filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on 10.01.2019, registered as Case No. 065/2019, seeking enhancement of maintenance to one-third of the non-applicant’s total monthly income of Rs. 2,17,727.12/-. The non-applicant appeared, filed reply, and contested the claim. After framing issues and recording evidence, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, vide final order dated 25.02.2020, enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 14,000/- per month, which is impugned in the present criminal revision. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the non- applicant/husband/father has himself admitted, as per Exhibit P-1 (payment certificate), that his monthly salary from his service at N.T.P.C. is Rs. 2,17,727.12/-. In view of such admitted income, it is contended that the applicants, being the legally wedded wife and daughter, are entitled to one-third share of the non-applicant’s income towards their maintenance, in accordance with the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Because the evidence of both parties, including the testimonies of prosecution witnesses (PWs) and defence witnesses (DWs), clearly established that the non-applicant is financially capable of providing such maintenance. It is an admitted fact, duly supported by Exhibit P-1, that the non-applicant is in receipt of substantial monthly income, and therefore, the amount of maintenance presently awarded is inadequate and liable to be enhanced proportionately. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur District: Bilaspur, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and admitted facts on record, rightly enhanced the amount of maintenance payable to the applicants. The Court took 4 into account that the non-applicant’s marriage with applicant No.1 was admitted, that the applicants had earlier been granted maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and that the non- applicant’s monthly salary from N.T.P.C., as per Exhibit P-1, is Rs. 2,17,727.12/-. In light of the substantial increase in the non- applicant’s income and the rising expenses of the wife and daughter, the Family Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 7,500/- and Rs. 3,500/- per month to a consolidated amount of Rs. 14,000/- per month. The order dated 25.02.2020 is reasoned, equitable, and in conformity with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for determining maintenance. 8. Considering the submission 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan