1 2025:CGHC:29189 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 506 of 2024 Vijay Sahu S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Sahu Aged About 34 Years Occupation - Service, R/o Village - Runai, Post - Runai, Tehsil - Baikunthpur, Distt.- Koriya (C.G.) At Present R/o Village - Janakpur, Peon In Boys Hostel, P.S.- Janakpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Anjali W.O Vijay Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Bawaspara, Odgie, P.S.and Post - Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Manendragarh, Camp Court, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No.34/2021, whereby the Learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicant for alteration of maintenance which awarded by order dated 23.03.2024. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 11:03:06 +0530 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent had moved an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, Dist. Koriya, C.G. for alteration of maintenance to her by order dated 24/8/2019. The case of the respondent is that the learned Family Court has ordered her to pay 1,500/- per month as maintenance by the order Annexure A-2, at present inflation has increased and she cannot survive in 1500/-, respondent further submits also the salary of the applicant has been increased, therefore kindly awarded the maintenance 4,000/- per month in the place of 1500/- per month. After serving notice, the applicant filed reply to the application U/s 127 of Cr.P.C. the applicant specifically denies all the allegation and stated in his reply respondent is not his legally wedded wife, earlier maintenance order Annexure A-2 already challenged before this Court which is pending for hearing. Applicant further stated in his reply that he was also acquitted by the trial Court for alleged offence 376 of IPC which registered by the respondent. Applicant receive 25,000/- salary per month, but half of the applicant's salary spent on his and his mother treatment, therefore applicant not enable to pay maintenance 4,000/- per month. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the learned Family Court and after evidence the learned Trial Court allowed the application U/s 127 of Cr.P.C. and maintenance altered 1,500/- per month to 4,000/- , aggrieved by that, the present applicant has filed this present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned order dated 23/03/2024 is against the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court has made a serious legal mistake in 3 computing the income of applicant. The learned Family Court has also made a grave mistake in determining that respondent is legally wedded wife of the applicant. The learned Family Court has committed error by providing excessive maintenance against the income and family dependency of the applicant, which is not sustainable. The learned Family Court failed in to consideration to concrete document of the evidence which clearly proof the defense of the applicant. 4. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that from the order dated 24.10.2019 that in the year 2019, the respondent was given an order for maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month from the applicant/husband on the basis of that the applicant had told that he gets a salary of Rs. 8000/- per month. At present, the applicant himself has told that he gets a salary of Rs. 25 thousand per month. Apart from this, the salary slip of 2023 has been presented by the respondent/wife, from which it is also clear that the applicant gets a net salary of Rs. 25431/-. After the above discussion, it appears that the salary of the applicant has increased significantly as compared to the year 2019. Due to which the financial circumstances of the applicant have changed. At present, the prices of daily commodities have also increased significantly as compared to the year 2019. Rs. 1500/- per month is not sufficient for the maintenance of an adult person. Since the financial condition of the applicant has changed, in such a situation it seems appropriate to provide maintenance to the respondent at an increased rate. As a result, the application submitted by the respondent/wife under section 127 Cr.P.C. is accepted and it is ordered that the applicant will pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of order. 4 5. have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. Considering the submissions 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti