1 2025:CGHC:34629 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 475 of 2022 Arun Kumar Sao S/o Avdhoot Sao Aged About 37 Years Occupation- Assistant Professor R/o - Village Padhigaon P.S. And Tehsil- Pussore District- Raigarh (C.G.) Current R/o - Dr. Harisingh Gour Central University, Sagar Yog Vigyan Vibhaag District - Sagar (Madhya Pradesh) Pin - 470003 ... Applicant versus Smt. Satyavati Sao W/o Arun Kumar Sao Aged About 26 Years Occupation - Housewife R/o - Village - Aurda P.S. And Tehsil - Pussore, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. F-148/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh, allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent tied knots on 12/07/2013 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raigarh (C.G.) with all the rites and ritual of Hindu Law whereby after some year of their wedlock, thereby after a short time span, there was some conflicts between the applicant and the respondent. As per the contention of the respondent she left her matrimonial house due to tormenting of the applicant. The applicant moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, bearing 107-A/2016 and vide order dated 07/10/2016 the applicant and the respondent entered Into a compromise, the respondent refused to live with the applicant, on account of which the applicant was compelled to file a petition for divorce before the Family Court Sagar (Madhya Pradesh). Pursuant to filing of the divorce petition the respondent has inscribed false FIR on 04/05/2017 making false allegation of cruelty and demand of dowry against this applicant and others bearing Crime No. 71/2017, at Police Station- Pussore District- Raigarh (C.G.) for an offence under Section 498/34 of the IPC, in which the applicant vide order dated 02/02/2018 was enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1093/2017, meanwhile the applicant had also filed a petition bearing CRMP No. 99/2017, for quashment of the FIR before this Court, and vide order dated 01/08/2019, this Court was kind enough to quash the FIR on numerous grounds. on 29/08/2017 the applicant and the respondent both appeared before the Learned Family Court, Raigarh, in which they filed compromise deed in which it was mutually decided that the applicant will pay the maintenance amount under Section 125 of CrPC for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- to the respondent, the respondent agreed to the contentions of the applicant and thus the order was passed by the Learned Family Court in Criminal MJC No. F-39/2017. The respondent 3 after the time period of five years, filed an application under Section 127 of CrPC for alteration in allowance in the maintenance amount on 01/10/2019, the same was inscribed as Criminal MJC No. F-148/2019, notices were issued to the applicant, the applicant acquired the notice and marked his appearance before the Learned Family Court, Raigarh. the Learned Family Court, Raigarh vide order dated 06/04/2022 after examining the entire unreliable evidence on the part of the respondent and not considering the evidence on the part of the present applicant, allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 127 of CrPC for alteration in the amount of maintenance, and straightway enhanced the maintenance amount from sum of Rs. 9,000/- to 12,000/-. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the applicant is paying sum of Rs. 9,000/- which was decided out of comprise between the parties, in the year 2017, even after that, out of greed and just to harass the applicant, the respondent has filed the application for alteration in the maintenance amount. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set- aside/quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. F-148/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh, allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and 4 ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondent, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar