1 2025:CGHC:28623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 467 of 2019 Lokesh Tamrakar S/o Shri Ramkumar Tamrakar Aged About 43 Years R/o Lily Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Lubhani Tamrakar D/o Late Shri Umashankar Tamrakar Aged About 39 Years R/o Care Of Shri Rajkumar Tamrakar, Tamer Para, Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Aman Tamrakar, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, 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 respondent, whereby the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount Rs.1,200/- to Rs.2,000/- and directed to pay the same to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on May 11, 2003, at Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. the respondent (wife) filed an application under Section 127 of the CrPC seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount granted vide order dated February 24, 2009, passed in Case No. 259/2008, wherein Rs.1,200/- per month was awarded to the respondent after mutual settlement between both parties. The respondent pleaded in her application that there has been a change in circumstances due to a significant change in living standards, inflation, and financial conditions, and she is suffering from various ailments, making it impossible for her to meet her expenses and daily needs with just Rs.1,200/- per month. Therefore, she prayed for an award of Rs.5,000 per month. The applicant (husband) denied all the allegations and averments made in the application and contended that the non-applicant is not entitled to any maintenance as divorce has been granted in his favor on the ground of cruelty 3 committed by the non-applicant. He also claimed that the respondent is an educated and working skilled lady capable of meeting her needs and livelihood. The applicant further stated that he is a civil judge aspirant who has cleared the prelims several times, and every time during his interview, the respondent files applications before the Family Court with the intent to harass and mentally torture him. After completion of pleadings, examination of witnesses, evaluation of evidence, and hearing both parties, Learned Trial Court partly allowed the application filed by the respondent. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court erred in not appreciating the fact that a decree of divorce was granted to the applicant on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent, which makes her not entitled to any maintenance. Further, overlooked the fact that the respondent filed a false case of domestic violence against the applicant, which was dismissed, and the appeal was also dismissed. He further submits that learned Family Court erred in not considering the fact that the respondent is living separately from the applicant for over 14 years, is an educated and skilled woman with a separate source of income, and is capable of meeting her needs. Given the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty by the wife, there is no point in granting maintenance to the respondent. He also submits that respondent presented contradictory facts and submissions/statements before the Court below and never 4 approached the Court with clean hands, which the Family Court overlooked while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the order impugned 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 respondent, whereby the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount Rs.1,200/- to Rs.2,000/- and directed to pay the same to respondent 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 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 respondent 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. 5 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil