1 2025:CGHC:40549 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 493 of 2024 Gajju Kannauje S/o Dukhuram Kannauje, Aged About 39 Years R/o Samta Colony, Ward No. 01, Paneka Chowk, Town Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Manisha Kannauje W/o Gajju Kannauje, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Tikaripara, Khairagarh, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 05-03-2024 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Family Court, Link Court Khairagarh, seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month, stating that by order dated RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 21.02.2019 in Criminal Case No. 06/2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., she had been granted Rs. 4,000/- per month, but due to inflation and increase in prices of household articles and groceries, it had become difficult to maintain herself, and that she sometimes undertakes labour work. She further alleged that the applicant/husband is working as an Assistant Teacher earning Rs. 60,000/- per month besides agricultural income. The husband, in reply, denied these allegations and contended that soon after marriage, the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home without cause, despite his efforts to bring her back, and that she is an educated woman working as a teacher earning about Rs. 12,000/- per month, also receiving ration through her father who owns a shoe store. He further submitted that he is not earning Rs. 60,000/- per month, has no agricultural income, is repaying a bank loan for house construction, and is maintaining his old and ailing mother. Alleging that the wife is attempting to misuse the plea of inflation for wrongful gain, he prayed for dismissal of the application. However, the Learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the material on record, partly allowed the application by order dated 05.03.2024 and enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure A-1) is arbitrary, illegal, against the principles of natural justice, and liable to be set aside; the Learned Family Court failed to consider that the wife is already receiving Rs. 4,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3 pursuant to order dated 21.02.2019 and an additional Rs. 2,000/- per month under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act vide order dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure A-3), making her total monthly maintenance Rs. 6,000/-. No substantial period has elapsed since the earlier order, nor has there been any material change in circumstances or inflation warranting enhancement. The wife has also falsely implicated the husband in a criminal case under Sections 294, 323, and 506-II IPC, in which he has been acquitted by judgment dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure A-4), establishing that she is residing separately without sufficient cause and is not entitled to enhanced maintenance. The Family Court further ignored that the wife is a beneficiary of the Mahtari Vandan Yojna, as reflected in the official final list (Annexure A-5), and failed to appreciate the husband’s unchanged financial status and the absence of any genuine increase in expenses, thereby passing the impugned order without proper consideration of the facts, which deserves to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent/wife moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Family Court, Link Court Khairagarh, seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month, pleading that the earlier maintenance awarded vide order dated 21.02.2019 in Criminal Case No. 06/2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. had become insufficient due to inflation and escalation in the prices of essential commodities, compelling her to occasionally 4 undertake labour work, while the applicant/husband is employed as an Assistant Teacher with a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 60,000/- in addition to agricultural income. Upon consideration of the pleadings, submissions, and overall circumstances, the Learned Family Court found merit in the wife’s claim of increased financial needs, taking into account the rise in living costs, the statutory duty of the husband to maintain his wife, and his earning capacity. Accordingly, by its reasoned order dated 05.03.2024, the Court has rightly partly allowed the application, holding that enhancement was justified, and increased the maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month, thereby ensuring a fair balance between the wife’s needs and the husband’s means. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan