1 2025:CGHC:40550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 481 of 2024 Dr. Jasmeet Singh S/o Ranbir Singh Aged About 34 Years Assistant Professor, R/o B-102, Anand Vihar, Phase - 2, Potiya, Durg, Official Address - Department Wildlife And Forensic Center, College Of Veterinary Sciences And Animal Husbandry, Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya, Anjora, Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Miss Sumona (Minor) D/o Jasmeet Singh Aged About 6 Years Through Mother And Gurdian Dr. Smt. Smita, R/o - G/36, Rishab South City Potiyakala, Police Station City Pulgaon, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 pleased to allow the instant revision application and set aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 284/2022 and set aside the order of alteration of maintenance under section 127 CRPC against the present applicant, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of the Applicant with Dr. Smt. Smita, mother of respondent, was solemnized on 15.04.2013 as per religious rites in an inter-caste love marriage, and from the said wedlock a daughter, Miss Sumona (respondent), was born on 15.06.2015. After about three years of marriage, disputes arose, leading to an application for judicial separation in 2016, which was later withdrawn along with a mutual consent divorce petition. On 16.08.2017, through her mother, the minor daughter filed Criminal M.J.C. No. 900/2017 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was partly allowed by the Learned Family Court, Durg, directing the Applicant to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance, which he duly complied with. Subsequently, the Applicant obtained a decree of divorce on 06.03.2023 under Section 13(1)(i-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty, with both parents directed to equally bear the child’s educational, marriage, and other expenses, payable on production of bills. Thereafter, the ex-wife, on behalf of the minor, filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking 3 enhancement of maintenance, despite being negligent in attending proceedings and without furnishing any proof of increased expenses. The Applicant filed a detailed reply opposing the enhancement, stating the application was filed to harass him and that no substantial increase in expenses was shown. However, by order dated 04.03.2024, the Learned Family Court partly allowed the application, presuming total monthly expenses of Rs. 50,000 for the minor and directing the Applicant to bear half, thereby increasing maintenance to Rs. 25,000 per month, solely relying on the wife’s contentions without documentary proof and without considering the Applicant’s defence, resulting in the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order of the Learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and has failed to appreciate that the Applicant raised a probable and substantiated defence by proving that there was no substantial increase in the expenses of the minor daughter. The Respondent produced no bills or documentary evidence to prove any such increase, and in her cross-examination, she admitted that she had not produced documents regarding caretaker charges, home tuition, or hobby classes. Despite this, the Learned Court accepted her unsubstantiated claim that the monthly expenses of a six-year-old child amounted to Rs. 50,734, without proof, ignoring that even a family of four typically spends around that amount. The Court further failed to consider that the mother of the minor is a government servant earning a gross salary higher 4 than that of the Applicant, and that the maintenance paid by the Applicant pursuant to the earlier order dated 21.03.2018 has accumulated to about Rs. 6 lakhs, as she has not spent it on the child, and that the Applicant’s request to deposit the same in a government scheme for the child’s benefit was wrongly rejected. The Learned Court erred in law by accepting documents tendered by the Respondent as proved without following due procedure, and by ignoring that under Section 127 Cr.P.C., alteration of maintenance requires proof of a material change in circumstances, which was not established here. The Court also disregarded the settled dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that maintenance for children should not exceed 15% of the father’s average monthly income, whereas in the present case the amount has been enhanced far beyond that limit. The maintenance awarded is excessive and unjustified, and the order, being perverse and contrary to settled legal principles, deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the marriage of the Applicant with Dr. Smt. Smita, mother of respondent, was solemnized on 15.04.2013 as per religious rites in 5 an inter-caste love marriage, and from the said wedlock a daughter, Miss Sumona (respondent), was born on 15.06.2015. Following marital discord and subsequent divorce granted on 06.03.2023 under Section 13(1)(i-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty, the Learned Family Court, while safeguarding the welfare of the minor child, rightly considered the rising costs of education, upbringing, and overall well-being of a growing child. In exercise of its powers under Section 127 Cr.P.C., the Court carefully assessed the needs of the minor, the financial capacity of the Applicant, and the standard of living to which the child is entitled, and reasonably presumed the monthly expenditure to be Rs. 50,000, directing both parents to share it equally. The order enhancing maintenance from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 25,000 per month is just, equitable, and in consonance with the legal principle that the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration, especially where both parents have the obligation to ensure her proper upbringing. The Court’s finding is based on a holistic appreciation of the circumstances, and no illegality or perversity can be attributed to the impugned order. 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. 6 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 Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan