1 2025:CGHC:40562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 371 of 2024 Guha Singh S/o Balmiki Jangde Aged About 45 Years R/o Jungle Side Near High School, Udiya Mohalla, Bandhpara Bankimongra Post Bankimongra Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Kiran Jangde W/o Guha Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o 338 Phase-2 Patan Raipur Road Maruti Infracity, Village And Post Sankra V.T.C. Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Minor Kumar Nidhi D/o Guha Singh Aged About 13 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Kiran Jangde W/o Guha Singh, R/o 338 Phase- 2 Patan Raipur Road Maruti Infracity, Village And Post Sankra V.T.C. Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate.. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present 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 this revision and be pleased to setj-aside/quash the impugned order dated ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 11:11:37 +0530 2 24.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court in Cr.M.J.C. No. 01/2023, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents had earlier filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against the applicant, which was allowed, and Rs. 7,000/- was awarded as maintenance vide order dated 10.04.2015. Against the order dated 10.04.2015, the respondents preferred a criminal revision before this Hon’ble Court for enhancement of the maintenance amount, which was allowed, and the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 13,000/- per month to the respondents. 4. On 16.01.2023, the respondents filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount, stating that there was a need for money for the education and medical expenses of the minor daughter, and that prices had increased. It was further stated that the applicant had sufficient means, being an employee of SECL, drawing salary and bonus. 5. Upon notice, the applicant filed a reply to the application, denying all the averments and stating that he had the liability to maintain his parents; that he was paying the maintenance amount regularly; that for medical expenses, he had provided a medical card for the treatment of the respondents; and that he was paying installments of a housing loan. It was further submitted that the Hon’ble High Court had already enhanced the maintenance amount, and therefore, in light of the Hon’ble Court’s order, the application deserved rejection. 6. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court found that the respondents were entitled to enhancement of maintenance, and accordingly, vide the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure A/1), 3 directed the applicant to pay Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 9,000/- to respondent No. 2 (child), totalling Rs. 19,000/- per month, from the date of the order. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that a sufficient amount for maintenance had already been enhanced by the Hon’ble Court in favour of the respondents; therefore, there was no necessity for further enhancement. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is maintaining his parents and is also subject to deductions towards a housing loan, and therefore, the enhancement order is causing great financial hardship to the applicant. He submits that learned Family Court did not properly appreciate the applicant’s case and committed an error by allowing the application. The findings of the learned Family Court are perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the 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