1 2025:CGHC:28625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 465 of 2019 Smt. Lubhani Tamrakar W/o Shri Lokesh Tamrakar Aged About 30 Years Resident Of C/o Rajkumar Tamrakar, Tamerapara, Dhamdha, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Lokesh Tamrakar S/o Ramkumar Tamrakar Aged About 34 Years Lili Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Aman Tamrakar, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.775/2014, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, whereby the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount Rs.1,200/- to Rs.2,000/- and directed to pay the same to applicant towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that in 2008, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, registered as Case No. 259/2008, seeking maintenance. Vide order dated February 24, 2009, the learned Court below partly allowed the application and ordered the grant of maintenance of Rs.1,200, which the respondent has been paying since then. The applicant subsequently filed an application under Section 127 of the CrPC for enhancement of the maintenance amount, stating that due to increased inflation since 2009, Rs.1,200 is a very low sum for her to take care of herself. She also claimed that the respondent, being a renowned advocate, earns Rs.20-25 thousand per month. Therefore, she prayed for an enhancement of the maintenance amount to Rs.5,000. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has enhanced the maintenance amount Rs.1,200/- to Rs.2,000/- and directed to pay the same to applicant towards maintenance 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court below failed to consider that the applicant is a housewife residing with her parents, and Rs.2,000 is a very low amount for maintaining a person in the current times. He further submits that learned Family Court erred in enhancing the maintenance amount by only Rs.800, considering the high prices of commodities. He also submits that learned Family Court concluded that the respondent is an experienced advocate but failed to suitably enhance the maintenance amount accordingly. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, whereby the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount Rs.1,200/- to Rs.2,000/- and directed to pay the same to applicant towards maintenance observing the circumstances of both parties, their economic and social status, and their needs, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the 4 maintenance amount of Rs.1,200/- per month ordered in 2009 is insufficient in the present circumstances, therefore, Rs.2,000/- per month to be a sufficient amount for the applicant maintenance and found it justified to increase the maintenance amount from Rs.1,200/- to Rs.2,000/- per month, as ordered on February 24, 2009. 8. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil