1 2025:CGHC:37938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 312 of 2022 Smt. Kaushilya Bai W/o Shobharam Kaushik, Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Bhadam, Police Station Kota, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Sabharam @ Shobharam Kaushik S/o Jhallaram, Aged About 64 Years Head Master, Primary School Ghonghadih, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Bhadam, Police Station Kota, Tahsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Gorelal Tandon, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sourav Agrawal, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Gorelal Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 revision petition and further be pleased to modify the order dated 21.02.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 811/2019, between "Smt. Kaushilya Bai Vs. Sabharam @ Shobharam Kaushik" and enhance the maintenance amount, is in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant/applicant filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount granted earlier. Vide order dated 08.07.2017 in M.J.C. No. 209/2017 (Smt. Kaushilya Bai & Others vs. Sabharam @ Shobharam Kaushik), the Family Court had directed payment of ₹5,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. It was pleaded that the said amount was insufficient for her sustenance and she required ₹20,000/- per month. The non-applicant/respondent opposed the application contending that the applicant resides with her son, who earns ₹25,000-30,000/- per month, and hence enhancement was unwarranted. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 21.02.2022, enhanced the maintenance to ₹6,500/- per month, which the applicant contends is still inadequate, hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, vide order dated 21.02.2022, enhanced the maintenance amount from ₹5,000/- to only ₹6,500/- per month, 3 which is grossly meager, inadequate, and disproportionate to the prevailing cost of living and rising prices of essential commodities, thereby failing to meet the basic sustenance and medical needs of the applicant; further, the learned Court failed to properly appreciate the admitted fact that the non-applicant is receiving a monthly salary of approximately ₹35,650/- from the Education Department and also earns additional income from immovable properties, clearly establishing his financial capacity to pay a higher amount of maintenance; moreover, the learned Court overlooked the applicant’s domestic circumstances and the escalating household expenses towards food, clothing, medical treatment, and other daily necessities, which cannot reasonably be met with the meager sum awarded, thereby causing grave hardship and serious prejudice to the applicant. The Family Court’s failure to consider these aspects renders the order arbitrary and unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent 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 has rightly enhanced the maintenance amount from ₹5,000/- to ₹6,500/- per month vide order dated 21.02.2022. 4 While doing so, the Court took into account the applicant’s plea of rising expenses as well as the respondent’s financial status and obligations, and arrived at a balanced figure commensurate with the needs of the applicant and the proven means of the respondent. The enhancement is reasonable, just, and based on proper appreciation of facts and law. 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