1 2025:CGHC:18952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 490 of 2025 Dubeylal S/o Gopi Ram Aged About 81 Years R/o Barpali, Ps - Dabhra Tahsil Malkharouda Distt. Sakti (Cg) Present Address- Plot No. 415/13 Road No. 11, Ashish Nagar West Risali Bhilai Near Shakti Bhawan Durg (Cg) ... Petitioner( versus Smt. Jeevan Bai W/o Dubeylal Aged About 70 Years R/o Barpali, P.S. Dabhra, Tahsil- Malkharuda Distt. Sakti (Cg) Present Address- Pikripar Tahsil- Malkharuda Distt. Sakti (Cg) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25/04/2025 Heard on admission. 1. The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the impugned order dated 05.02.2025, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court (Link Court), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Miscellaneous VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.28 19:06:11 +0530 2 Criminal Case No. 103 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 127 of CRPC was partly allowed and the amount of maintenance earlier granted is altered/enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per month. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the husband of the present respondent. In MCRC No. 178 of 1996, which was the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 125 of CRPC, an amount of Rs. 900/- per month was granted in her favour as maintenance amount vide order dated 10.08.1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti. On 13.10.2023, the respondent filed an application before the learned Family Court (Link Court), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa under Section 127 of CRPC claiming alteration/enhancement of the maintenance amount, which was granted vide order dated 10.08.1999 and claimed that the maintenance amount of Rs. 900/- per month be enhanced to Rs. 9,000/- per month, as there are acute price hike in the day-to-day expenses of her livelihood and Rs. 900/- is a very meagre amount, in which she could not survive. 3. The present petitioner replied the application filed by the respondent before the learned Family Court and submitted that he himself is an old aged person and his job was not pensionable and he is having no source of income and depends upon his relatives. He is having ancestral property, which is in dispute and litigation is pending against it. The respondent/wife is receiving an amount of Rs. 1000/- under the scheme of Mahtari Vandan and amount towards Vriddha pension and deserted lady and also receiving ration under the 3 various schemes of the State Government and she is not having any requirement of enhancement of the maintenance amount. Therefore, her application be dismissed. 4. The learned Family Court after considering the entire evidence produced by the parties comes to the conclusion that Rs. 900/- per month is very meagre amount looking to the present cost of living and status of the parties and partly allowed the application of the respondent and enhanced the monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 900/- to Rs. 2000/- per month, which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner himself is an old aged person having no source of his income, he himself depends upon his relatives, his job was not pensionable and has not received any pension from the government, whereas the wife is having various sources of her income and livelihood including various schemes of the State Government and therefore, she is not entitled for enhancement of the maintenance amount, yet the learned Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that the petitioner has admitted in his evidence that presently he is residing at Bhilai, where he has constructed a house after obtaining loan, which was amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs. He was in service since 1975 up to 2008 and at the time of his retirement, he received huge amount, but 4 no documentary evidence has been filed by him. He also admitted that at village Barpali, he was having about 25 acres of land in joint holding with his brother and sister. The learned Family Court after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence available on record, enhanced the monthly maintenance amount to Rs. 2000/- in favour of the respondent/wife. 8. It is not in dispute that, in the year 1999, Rs. 900/- per month as maintenance amount has been granted in favour of the respondent/ wife. The change in circumstances referred in sub-section (1) of Section 127 of CRPC is a comprehensive case and also includes change circumstances of husband. The amount of maintenance once fixed under Section 125 of CRPC is not something, which can be taken to the blanket liability for all times to come. It is subject to variation on both sides. It can be increased or decreased as per the altered situation. Section 125 of CRPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman, who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some considerable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and children. She is required to sufficient amount for her day-to-day needs. 9. The quantum of maintenance always lies with the discretion of the learned Family Court and said discretion cannot be interfered with unless and until it is shown as arbitrary or capacious. The amount awarded/enhanced by the learned Family Court by the impugned order cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive. 5 10. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, enhancing the monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- in favour of the respondent/wife. Accordingly, the present revision sans merit and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved