1 2025:CGHC:27712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 460 of 2019 Smt. Prem Bai W/o Babulal Aged About 40 Years Caste Suryawanshi, R/o Khokhra, Police Station and Tahsil - Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Babulal Basant S/o Baliram Aged About 46 Years Caste Suryawanshi, Occupation Lecturer, Government Middle School, Sarwani, Block Bamhanidih, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. The applicant/wife has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.107/2018, whereby the learned Family Court was partly allowed the application under PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.27 10:40:58 +0530 2 Section 127 CrPC filed by the applicant/wife for enhancement of maintenance amount. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent are husband and wife and now they are living separately. The applicant/wife had filed an application for maintenance before the learned Family Court vide order dated 01.10.2015 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 208/2015, the learned Family Court has allowed maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of applicant. Thereafter, applicant filed an application U/s 127 of Cr.P.C., stating that the respondent is a government servant and getting salary of Rs. 70,000/-per month. The applicant is living in a rental house. The applicant's daughter has been married and the applicant is required to gift article in festival to her daughter. The respondent is also holding agricultural land and getting income from agricultural land. It was further specifically stated by the applicant that in present scenario of society, the awarded maintenance is not enough for maintaining a lady and the respondent is able to pay further maintenance amount to the applicant, therefore she filed application for enhancement of maintenance amount. After serving notice, the respondent filed reply to the application, whereby denied the allegations except admitted fact. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned order dated 05.03.2019, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 7000/- per month to the applicant towards her maintenance. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that the impugned order dated 05.03.2019 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the enhanced 3 maintenance amount is not sufficient looking to high price of everything as well as food grain in present scenario of society, therefore the learned Family Court ought to have enhanced the maintenance amount at least upto Rs. 15000/-. The respondent/husband himself admitted that price of articles have been increased in present circumstances as compared to the date of passing earlier maintenance order. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is a government employee and getting Rs. 65,000/- per month salary and except that, he is holding agricultural land and getting income agricultural land. The applicant being legally wedded wife is entitled to maintain living standard at par to the respondent. The applicant is living in rental house and paying Rs. 4000/- per month as house rent. The applicant is required to make-up articles, cloths and proper food, which is not possible in the awarded maintenance amount. The applicant has no source of income and she is not availing any benefits or aid provided by the government as per their scheme. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, the maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- which has been 4 ordered to be paid to the applicant by respondent cannot be said to be meager amount and it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned learned Family Court Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2019 in Misc. Criminal Case No.107/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, has partly allowed the application for enhancement of maintenance, and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti