1 2025:CGHC:32947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 574 of 2022 Shiv Kumar S/o Late Bhaktu Ram Satnami Aged About 47 Years Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village- Baiharsari, Police Chawki- Podi, Police Station and Tahsil- Bodala, Civil and Revenue District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Rekha Bai W/o Shri Shiv Kumar Aged About 45 Years Occupation- House Wife, R/o Village- Baiharsari, Police Chawki- Podi, Police Station and Tahsil- Bodala, Civil and Revenue District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh At Present- R/o Village Rahangi, Police Station and Tahsil- Bodala, Civil and Revenue District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shivnath Shriwas, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, (Kawardha) (C.G.) in M.J.C No.46/2021, whereby the respondent filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court for enhancement of the maintenance amount which PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.17 14:06:56 +0530 2 has been allowed and applicant has directed to pay amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent is the applicant's legally wedded wife, and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, they lived together for some time but later separated due to disputes, and the respondent started living in her parental home. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, and the Court directed the applicant to pay ₹300 per month as maintenance. The respondent later filed multiple applications under Section 127 of the CrPC for enhancement of maintenance, which were allowed, and the amount was increased to ₹900, ₹1,200, and then ₹1,550 per month. In 2021, the respondent again filed an application under Section 127 of the CrPC for enhancement of maintenance, and the Court allowed it, directing the applicant/ husband to pay ₹2,000 per month as maintenance. The applicant has filed a revision petition challenging this order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitsthat the Family Court passed the order without considering the case's facts and circumstances, relying solely on the respondent's statement. The respondent left the applicant's house without reason and started quarreling, making her ineligible for maintenance. The respondent has filed multiple applications for enhancement of maintenance, which indicates a lack of merit in her claims. The applicant's financial capacity is limited, with only 2.31 acres of land to cultivate and support his second wife, children, and himself. The respondent has a source of income as a cook in a government school, receives 35 kg of rice from the state government, and gets a pension under the Sukhad Sahara Scheme, which the Court failed to consider. 3 The applicant seeks to quash/set aside the order due to these reasons. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that earlier, by the Family Court, Kabirdham under MJC 129/2018 Rekha Bai v. Shivkumar, order dated 19/06/2018 under Section 127 Cr.P.C., the monthly maintenance amount of respondent Rekha Bai was increased to Rs. 1550 per month. In the present circumstances, inflation has increased continuously in the last four years and the price of essential commodities has increased, in such circumstances, increasing the monthly maintenance amount of the respondent is considered appropriate in the circumstances of the case. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti