1 2025:CGHC:40543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 530 of 2024 Satish Helonde S/o Ramesh Helonde Aged About 38 Years R/o Dorli (Bhigare), P.S. Kamleshwar, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur, Maharashtra ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Chandrabhaga @ Ranu Helonde W/o Satish Helonde Aged About 30 Years R/o Kailash Nagar, Durg, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Mimansa D/o Satish Helonde Aged About 8 Years R/o Kailash Nagar, Durg, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is prayed that the present revision petition may kindly be allowed by this Hon'ble Court and the impugned order dated 15.02.2024, passed by the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, may kindly be set aside in the interest of Justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant, a law-abiding citizen, married non-applicant No. 1 on 03.04.2012, and non-applicant No. 2 is their daughter. The non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 163/2015, wherein, vide order dated 02.05.2015, maintenance of Rs. 2,300/- per month was awarded to non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,200/- per month to non- applicant No. 2. Separately, non-applicant No. 1 filed proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Learned JMFC, Durg, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 563/2014, which culminated in an order dated 26.11.2021 directing further monetary relief. Thereafter, the non- applicants moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 465/2018, seeking enhancement of maintenance on the ground of inflation and increased expenses. The Learned Court, by order dated 15.02.2024, enhanced the total maintenance from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month, granting Rs. 4,000/- to non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to non-applicant No. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 is bad in law and on facts, being passed ex parte and without proper consideration of the material on record, thereby causing irreparable loss to the applicant. The applicant, having no fixed source of income and burdened with the 3 responsibility of maintaining his family members, is a poor person and unable to bear the enhanced maintenance amount. The Learned Family Court erred in allowing the application for enhancement filed by the non-applicants, ignoring that non- applicant No. 1 is already receiving maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, vide order dated 26.11.2021. The impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, including the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, relating to overlapping jurisdiction, criteria for determining quantum, and enforcement of maintenance orders, and is therefore liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, upon careful appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances, rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 127 Cr.P.C. in Misc. Criminal Case No. 465/2018, noting the considerable rise in the cost of living and the increased needs of the dependents. The Court, by its well-reasoned order dated 15.02.2024, justly enhanced the total maintenance from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month, awarding Rs. 4,000/- to non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to non- applicant No. 2, thereby ensuring adequate provision for their sustenance and upholding the object of the beneficial legislation. 4 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan