1 2025:CGHC:27438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 455 of 2018 Santram S/o Shri Fulchand Yadav Aged About 64 Years R/o- Village- Mudhali, Police Station- Kusmunda, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Radha Bai W/o Shri Santram Aged About 58 Years R/o- Village- Chhindpur, Police Station- Kusmunda, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. … Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondent when the case is called out of hearing. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.25 19:16:33 +0530 2 “(i). The Hon’be Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case for it’s kind perusal; (ii) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in MJC No. 177/2016 and the application filed by the petitioner ( the applicant) under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice” 4. Brief Facts of the case are that on 09.08.2016, an application was filed the applicant under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for termination of the maintenance awarded in favour of the respondent. The case of the applicant in short, is that the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was allowed, and the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. Thereafter, an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by the respondent for enhancement of the maintenance amount. On 09.09.2011, the said application was allowed and the maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,400/- per month. Further case of the applicant is that at the time when the initial maintenance was 3 awarded in favour of the respondent, the petitioner was employed with SECL. However, on 30.04.2015, the petitioner retired from service. Since his retirement, no lump sum retirement benefits have been paid to him, nor is he receiving any pension. Therefore, due to lack of income, the petitioner is not in a position to pay maintenance to the respondent, and hence, the maintenance awarded in favour of the respondent is liable to be terminated. 5. The respondent submitted her reply and opposed the application filed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She submitted, in substance, that although the applicant has retired, he has received a lump sum amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- upon retirement and is also receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 12,000/-. Therefore, the applicant is financially capable of paying the maintenance, and accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is liable to be rejected. 6. On 09.02.2018, the Learned Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) passed the order rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for termination of the maintenance awarded in favour of the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. The impugned order dated 09.02.2018 has been passed without proper consideration of the materials available on record. The applicant has retired from service, and neither any lump sum retirement 4 benefit has been paid to him, nor is he receiving any pension. Due to this financial hardship, the applicant is not in a position to pay maintenance to the responden. Therefore, the application filed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is liable to be allowed. He also submits that the respondent is receiving benefits under a government scheme, including pension and subsidized rice, she has a source of support. Therefore, the application filed by the applicant under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deserves to be allowed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the maintenance awarded in favour of the respondent is liable to be terminated. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek