1 2025:CGHC:34960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 307 of 2023 1. Musarrat Afroz W/o Mohammad Imroze Khan Aged About 36 Years R/o Kelabadhi, Ward No. 41, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Mohammad Shan Alias Mahir Khan Aged About 10 Years Through His Natural Guardian Musarrat Afroz (Applicant No. 1), R/o Kelabadhi, Ward No. 41, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Mohammad Imroze Khan S/o Riyaz Ahmed Khan Aged About 43 Years R/o Plot No. 356/k, Cross Street- 03, Pragati Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, Ward No. 63, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. Other Address- Manas Grih Nirman Samiti, Plot No. 13-14, Sainath Colony, Kota Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Parth Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Siddharth Rathod, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.24 11:09:30 +0530 2 “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and modify the judgment dated 23.01.2023 passed by learned Second Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) Presided by Shri Moh. Rizwan Khan, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 870/2018 by suitably enhancing the maintenance amount and/or pass any other appropriate order which the Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicants had earlier filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent, which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 274/2014, wherein the learned Family Court, vide order dated 30.05.2016, granted a maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant No. 01 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the child of the applicant i.e. applicant No. 02. The applicants filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance allowance against the respondent on the ground that inflation has increased, and looking to the current situation, the applicant is unable to sustain her expenses as the amount granted as maintenance is on the lower side. She is living with her minor child, whose educational expenses are also very high in comparison to the maintenance amount granted, and therefore the applicant is unable to maintain herself and her child. She further stated that the respondent owns a two-floor house constructed over approximately 3000 sq. ft., situated at Pragati Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, where the parents of the respondent live on the lower floor, and the upper floor is rented to students, from which the respondent earns Rs. 25,000/- 3 to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The respondent is working as a lecturer in N.I.T. College, Raipur, from where he earns a monthly salary of Rs. 40,000/- and receives a scholarship of Rs. 30,000/-. Apart from this, the respondent gives personal tuition to engineering students and helps them with their project work, from which he additionally earns Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month. She further requested that the maintenance amount granted to her be enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month for herself, and from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month for the minor child. 4. The respondent filed his reply and denied the contentions made in the application. 5. Learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence and hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, passed the impugned order dated 23.01.2023, whereby the learned Family Court, by partly allowing the application of the applicant, enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month for the applicant/wife and from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month for the minor son, totaling Rs. 9,000/- per month. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance amount on a very lower side, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. A copy of the order dated 23.01.2023 is filed and marked herewith as ANNEXURE A/1. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court awarded the maintenance amount on a very lower side, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. He further submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that the maintenance amount granted should be just and proper. The 4 maintenance amount awarded is on the lower side in light of the ever- increasing inflation and the cost of education of applicant No. 02, and the amount granted by the lower court is insufficient to meet the educational expenses of applicant No. 02. He further submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent is obtaining and deceiving financial gain, advantage, and benefit to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- monthly, excluding his salary and scholarship. Therefore, the learned Family Court ought to have considered equity and good conscience at the time of enhancement of the award. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent has not furnished complete details and information as required by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh vs. Neha and has deliberately suppressed his income so that the applicants would be deprived of adequate maintenance. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that the maintenance amount granted should satisfy the minor son’s educational expenses in terms of providing him quality education and fulfilling his essential needs. He also submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that it is the settled position of law that an adequate amount, which is a minimum of 25% of the husband’s net salary, would be proper to be awarded as maintenance. Learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and material on record, adopted an arbitrary approach and partly allowed the application of the applicant, which is illegal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and 5 documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has enhanced maintenance from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 5000/- for applicant No. 1 and from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- for applicant No. 2, observing the income, social and economic status of both parties and the current price index, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. 10. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek