1 2025:CGHC:28314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 519 of 2018 Smt. Chandrakumari W/o Dhelu Ram Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o- Village- Pevro, P.S. And Tahsil- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Dhelu Ram S/o Ali Ram Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o- Village- Tatabod, P.S.- Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 11.04.2018 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Judge, Camp / Family Court, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.175/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the applicant under Section 127 of CrPC field by the applicant and has enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant, who is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, seeks enhancement of maintenance. The respondent, a Head Master at a Government Primary School, earns a monthly salary of Rs.50,972 and additional income from agriculture. Despite previous orders granting maintenance of Rs.1,200 in 2007 and an enhancement to Rs.2,500 in 2013, the applicant argues that this amount is insufficient for her maintenance. The trial court awarded Rs.4,000 as maintenance, which the applicant contends is inadequate given the current cost of living and her lack of other income sources. The applicant seeks a revision of the maintenance amount to Rs.20,000 per month, arguing that the current award is insufficient to meet her needs. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court erred in awarding only Rs.4,000 as maintenance to the applicant, despite the respondent's monthly salary being over Rs.50,000 and additional agricultural income of Rs.1 lakh, considering the settled principle of law, at least 1/5th of the respondent's income, approximately Rs.20,000 per month, ought 3 to have been awarded as maintenance. Therefore, the Family Court’s decision is contrary to the principle. He further submits that Rs.4,000 is insufficient for the applicant's maintenance, particularly in today's era of high living costs. The applicant has the right to live with dignity, and a reasonable enhancement of the maintenance amount is warranted. The Family Court should have considered the applicant's right to proper maintenance and awarded a more substantial amount instead of the meager Rs.4,000. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the applicant under Section 127 of CrPC field by the applicant and has enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.4,000/- per month observing that earlier, on 06.03.2013, approximately 5 years ago, the applicant was ordered to receive a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.2,500 from the respondent. Given the natural passage of time, it is expected that circumstances would have changed, including an increase in the 4 cost of essential commodities and daily necessities. The respondent argued that he is around 59-60 years old and will soon retire, relying solely on his pension to support himself, his second wife, and children. However, it is likely that the respondent will still have a steady income from his pension, in addition to income from his agricultural land. Considering these circumstances, the Family Court found that the current maintenance amount of Rs.2,500 per month is insufficient for the applicant's sustenance. It is reasonable to conclude that there has been a change in the circumstances of both parties, warranting an increase in the maintenance amount. Therefore, the Family Court came to the conclusion that it is deemed appropriate to enhance the monthly maintenance allowance from Rs.2,500 to Rs.4,000. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil