1 2025:CGHC:36877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 363 of 2023 Nankeshwar Sahu S/o. Banshiram Sahu, Aged About 31 Years Occupation - Agriculturist And Labour, R/o. Village - Andhiyarkhor, Police Station And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Anjani Sahu D/o. Premlal Sahu, W/o. Nankeshwar Sahu, Aged About 28 Years Occupation - Anganbadi Sahayika, R/o. Village Andhiyarkhor, Police Station and Tahsil - Nawagarh, District – Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Amit Buxy, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most humbly prayed that, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the instant revision and the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) passed in Cri. MJC No. 425/2022, may kindly be set-aside, and the application filed by the applicant u/s 127 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Annex. A- 4) may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 20.04.2015 as per Hindu rites. After matrimonial disputes, non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., alleging cruelty and claiming Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. The Family Court, vide order dated 22.05.2015, granted her Rs. 2,500/- per month. Subsequently, non- applicant sought enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on the ground of medical expenses and, vide order dated 09.12.2021, the maintenance was increased to Rs. 4,000/- per month, which was upheld by this Hon’ble Court in Cr.R. No. 75/2022 on 20.01.2022. Thereafter, as non-applicant was appointed as Anganbadi Sahayika earning Rs. 3,250/- per month, the applicant moved another application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for reduction of maintenance, relying on her income. Despite the non-applicant’s admission of employment, the learned Family Court, by order dated 02.02.2023, rejected the application without properly appreciating the evidence, leading to the filing of the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the 3 impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, unjust and based on conjectures and surmises, and therefore deserves to be set aside. The learned Court failed to appreciate that the non- applicant has admittedly been employed as an Anganbadi Sahayika since 05.05.2022, earning Rs. 3,250/- per month, which clearly shows that she is capable of maintaining herself. The same Court had earlier enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 4,000/- on the non-applicant’s application, holding that Rs. 4,000/- was sufficient for her livelihood; hence, after her subsequent employment, the maintenance amount ought to have been reduced. The learned Court also ignored its own finding that the non- applicant’s ailment was not permanent and thus did not justify continuous monetary support. Further, the Court erroneously relied on the applicant’s status as Village Up-Sarpanch, overlooking that he held the same position even when the maintenance was enhanced earlier. The Family Court failed to consider contradictions in the non-applicant’s pleadings and statements and did not apply judicial mind to the evidence on record, resulting in an excessive and unsustainable award. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara District: Bemetara, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings 4 and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 20.04.2015 as per Hindu rites, and upon arising disputes, non- applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. Considering the evidence of cruelty and her financial needs, the Family Court initially granted her Rs. 2,500/- per month vide order dated 22.05.2015. On her subsequent application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., citing increased medical expenses, the maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- per month by order dated 09.12.2021, which was duly upheld by this Court in Cr.R. No. 75/2022 on 20.01.2022. Thereafter, though the applicant sought reduction of maintenance on the ground of the non-applicant’s subsequent employment as Anganbadi Sahayika earning Rs. 3,250/- per month, the learned Family Court, after due consideration of her limited income, medical condition, and continued need for support, rightly rejected the application for reduction vide order dated 02.02.2023, holding that the amount awarded was just and reasonable in the circumstances. 8. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan