1 2025:CGHC:3620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 517 of 2018 1 - Ku. Supriya Tamboli D/o Satish Tamboli Aged About 15 Years Applicants Juvenile Through- Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pushpanjali Tamboli R/o- Near Shanti Lodge, Juna, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Swapnil Tamboli S/o Satish Tamboli Aged About 13 Years Applicants Juvenile Through- Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pushpanjali Tamboli R/o- Near Shanti Lodge, Juna, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Satish Tamboli S/o Dhan Singh Tamboli Aged About 39 Years R/o- Gram Mopka, P.S. Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For applicant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Vijay Laxmi Shroff, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 21/01/2025 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 16.04.2015 passed in MJC No. 491/16 whereby the application to enhance the amount of maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- to each of the applicants and the learned Family Court has granted only Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 2500/- to each applicants which is lesser to 2 live their lively hood and for their education. 2. Brief facts of case is that the applicants are daughter and son of the non- applicant. The mother of applicants Smt. Pushpanjali Tamboli got married with non applicant on 23.04.200 as per Hindu rituals and custom at Juna Bilaspur. After marriage, she was living with her husband at Bilaspur, due to her wedlock she born applicant No. 1 Supriya Tamboli on 13 May 2001 and on 23.08.2003 the applicant No. 2. He has deserted his wife and children. Therefore, the present applicants filed application under Section 125 of CrPC and the concerned Family Court has granted only Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 2500/- to each applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the non-applicant is working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-1 in High School Mopka and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and he has 3.5 acre agricultural land and earning also Rs. 1 lakh from agricultural. He further submits that the applicant No. 1 is student of 11th and applicant No. 2 is student of 9th standard. The mother of the applicants is taking care them and look after them but non applicant is avoiding his responsibility. Accordingly the maintenance should be enhanced looking to the increase in prices of various commodities. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are other three dependents on the respondent including wife, children, therefore, it would not be proper to enhance the amount of maintenance. 5. Perused the record of the court below. Perusal of the order would show that the entire refusal to enhance the amount of maintenance is based on the sole testimony of the respondent. It is not disputed by the parties that the respondent is working as a Shiksha Karmi Grade- 1 and earning Rs. 20,000/- and he is owner of 3.5 acre agricultural land and earning more than Rs. 1 lakh. The fact that the respondent is working in a government school, the salary-slip which has been produced by the applicants appears to be 3 reasonable. The learned Trial Court has reached to the conclusion that non- applicant/respondent is a teacher and applicants are entitled to get compensation Rs. 3000/- each (total Rs. 6000/-), However awarded only to Rs. 5000/- maintenance. The concerned Court cannot ignore that the inflation which is existing in the society and increase of the price index and various commodities and the judicial notice can be taken of that. Looking to the salary of respondent/non-applicant and his liabilities and inflation rate, it would be just and proper to enhance the amount of maintenance to the applicants i.e. daughter and son to the extent of Rs. 3500/- each per month, considering the facts in entirety i.e. inflation of prices. Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs. 7000/- i.e. Rs.3500/- per month each to the applicants i.e. two children from the date of filing of application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 6. With the above observation, the revision stands finally disposed off. 7. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti