1 2025:CGHC:30966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 488 of 2019 Shri Durgesh Kumar Soni S/o Shri Ramlochan Seth Aged About 38 Years R/o Narpatpur, Post Narayanpur, Chaubepur (Wrongly Mentioned As Chogepur), District Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh), Presenlty Residing At Sub Inspector / G.D. 85 Battalion Neimed Camp Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh., District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Asha Soni W/o Shri Durgesh Kumar Soni Aged About 36 Years (Kumar Is Not Mentioned In Certified Copy), R/o Korea Mines, Godripara, Police Station Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set- aside the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the court of learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District - Korea (C.G.), in Misc. Cr. Case No. 96/2017, in the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant had filed an application under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court on 03.03.2006, in which it was mentioned that on 24.04.2001 the marriage was performed between the parties according to caste custom prevalent and after 23 months of the marriage, the non-applicant has been ill treated by the applicant and his family member and in the year 2005 she has been ousted from the house. Thereafter, the applicant has neither made any effort to bring her back nor provided any financial support to her, despite having sufficient means and income. The non-applicant is unable to maintain herself as she has no independent source of income or sufficient means of livelihoold and due to facing severe financial hardship, which gives rise to a valid case of action to file application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. On 13.11.2017, the non-applicant filed an application under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the maintenance amount which was awarded on 11.07.2007 and the learned Family Court enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 2000/- to 4000/-. 4. The non-applicant filed it's reply and it was pleaded in the reply that he is having the responsibility of wife, one minor children and father and mother and it was specifically stated that a case of divorce was filed before the Principle Judge, Family Court Varanasi and on 17.09.2013 the judgment was passed and decree of divorce was obtained and thereafter, the marriage was performed and a sum of 3 Rs. 5,00,000/- has been deposited as permanent alimony on 07.10.2013 as per the order passed by the learned Family Court of Varanasi, so the application filed under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure ought to have been dismissed. Despite the pleadings and objection with regard to the enhancement the amount of maintenance, the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that on 17.09.2013 a decree of divorce was passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court of Varanasi and it was ordered that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited as a permanent alimony and in compliance of the order dated 17.09.2013, the applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 07.10.2013 and it was by ex-parte order. It is also pertinent to mention here at this juncture knowingly this fact that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been deposited by the applicant, the non-applicant has not withdrawn the amount and just to harass the applicant an application under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed. He further submits that the non-applicant admitted this fact that an application under Section 9 of Restitution of Conjugal right was filed by the applicant and it was ordered by the Court that the non-applicant reside alongwith the applicant and despite of the order of the Court the non-applicant went alongwith her father at Chirmiri. The conduct of the non-applicant clearly reveals that she is creating unnecessary litigation. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and documents available in record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 11.07.2007 ex-parte, whereby it has partly allowed the application and the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant. Being aggrieved by the same, the non-applicant have preferred an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for enhancement of maintenance amount and after appreciating the same, the learned Family Court concerned has modified in the judgment dated 01.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court and enhanced Rs. ₹2000/- to ₹4000/- per month (directed the applicant to pay Rs. 4000/- per month towards maintenance). 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 higher side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 5 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned orders and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal