1 2025:CGHC:32641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 566 of 2020 Harishankar Sai S/o Late Mahasai, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village - Bagicha Thana Road, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Awasmati Bai W/o Harishankar Sai, Aged About 54 Years R/o Lambdand Pongro, Tahsil - Bagicha, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2. Manisha D/o Harishankar Sai, Aged About 23 Years R/o Lambdand Pongro, Tahsil - Bagicha, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 24.01.2020, in the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.16 10:51:00 +0530 2 interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Jashpur (C.G.), seeking an enhancement of the maintenance amount. In their application, the respondents submitted that they are the wife and daughter of the applicant. In the year 2000, the applicant deserted the respondents, due to which the respondents filed an application for maintenance before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur. On the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties on 09.05.2002, the learned C.J.M., Jashpur passed an order granting maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively in favour of the respondents. Further, according to the compromise, it was agreed that the respondents would cultivate the agricultural land of the applicant situated at Village Mayurnacha for their maintenance. It was further submitted by the respondents that the said compromise was entered into keeping in view the low salary of the applicant at that time, nearly 20 years ago, and at present, the applicant is drawing a substantial salary. It was further submitted that respondent No. 1 is an elderly lady and respondent No. 2 is pursuing a B.Sc. Nursing course, and in the present social scenario, the maintenance amount is insufficient and should be enhanced. 4. After service of notice, the applicant herein filed a reply, denying the averments made by the respondents and submitting that respondent No. 2 is a major, and the applicant has been arranging for the educational and other expenses of respondent No. 2 from 3 the beginning till date. The applicant has paid Rs. 2,22,000/- towards the maintenance of respondent No. 1 from 2013 to 2019 and Rs. 83,000/- towards the maintenance of respondent No. 2. Therefore, the applicant submitted that the maintenance amount is not liable to be enhanced and prayed that the application filed by the respondents be rejected. 5. After hearing both parties, vide the impugned order dated 24.01.2020, the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- in favour of respondent No. 1, while rejecting the application on behalf of respondent No. 2. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, it is liable to be set aside. The applicant has arranged and borne the expenses towards the education and other needs of respondent No. 2 from the beginning till date. He submits that the applicant has already paid Rs. 2,22,000/- towards the maintenance of respondent No. 1 from 2013 to 2019 and Rs. 83,000/- towards the maintenance of respondent No. 2; therefore, the maintenance amount is not liable to be enhanced, and the application filed by the respondents deserves to be rejected. He also submits that the earlier maintenance was allowed in favour of respondent No. 1 on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties, and according to the said compromise, it was agreed that respondent No. 1 would cultivate the agricultural land of the applicant for her maintenance; therefore, in such circumstances, the learned Family Court ought not to have enhanced the maintenance amount. He 4 further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that there is no change in circumstances warranting the enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-, particularly considering the income of the applicant, who is maintaining his family members, and further, the applicant is an elderly person suffering from serious ailments. The enhanced maintenance amount is on the higher side, which cannot be allowed to sustain, and hence, the same is liable to be set aside/quashed. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 is a healthy lady and has a source of income sufficient for her survival. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. 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 No. 01 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek