1 2025:CGHC:34639 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 354 of 2024 Smt. Tuleshwari Tandon W/o Shri Komal Tandon, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kugda, Post Urla Charoda, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Komal Tandon S/o Late Shri Sadhu Ram Tandon, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Kanwar, P.S. Police Chowki Kanwar, Post Palari, District Balod (Cg) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 937/2021, may kindly be set-aside.” 3. Brief facts of the case are on 29.09.2021, the applicant has filed an application under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Family Court for enhancement of the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs 10,000/- per month from Rs. 5,000/- per month as awarded previously which was granted to the applicant on 08.09.2018 on the basis of settlement in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 553/2018. It has been averred by the applicant in her application that after 2020-21 the price of the essential commodities have been increased, price of medical commodities and travelling have increased a lot, therefore it is not possible for the applicant to maintain herself with a meager sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, hence she prayed for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It has also been averred that the income of the non-applicant has also increased two folds in comparison to his income in the year 2019. Since the applicant has not remarried therefore she is legally entitled for the maintenance. 4. The non-applicant has filed his reply to the aforementioned application and it has been averred by him that he works as Assistant Veterinary Doctor at District Dhamtari and earns a net pay of Rs. 45,500/- and he takes care of his old mother and 2 children and spends Rs.20,000/- to 30,000/- as education expense of his children and also given Rs.5,000/- to his wife/applicant herein. 5. The learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and impugned order and material available on record, passed the order on 05.02.2024, whereby enhanced the maintenance amount from 3 Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.8,000/- per month on the premise that since 2018, the inflation rate has gone up and therefore, the applicant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to consider that the inflation since 2018 till 2024 has doubled and the applicant is entitled to get at least Rs.10,000/- as monthly sum and it is further admitted that the non-applicant/ husband's salary has increased two-fold. He further submits that the application has been filed by the applicant on 29.09.2021 and the same has been decided vide impugned order dated 5.2.2024 i.e. after a period of 2.5 years after filing of the application, the applicant ought to have received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance amount. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that remedy of maintenance is a measure of social justice as envisaged under the Constitution to prevent wives and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and and material 4 available on record, passed the order on 05.02.2024, whereby enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.8,000/- per month on the premise that since 2018, the inflation rate has gone up and therefore, the applicant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non- applicant and the genuine needs of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the findings recorded by the learned Family Court concerned, 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal