1 2025:CGHC:40544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 528 of 2024 Panchram S/o Gajanand Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Chitrekha Sahu W/o Panchram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, C.G. Present Address-Village Mohabhaata, Tahsil and, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent 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 18.03.2024, passed by the Ld. Judge Family Court, Mungeli, may kindly be set aside in the interest of Justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant, a law-abiding citizen, married the non-applicant in 2009. The non-applicant initially filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Learned RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 JMFC, Mungeli, registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 18/2013, wherein, by order dated 20.06.2014, maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month was awarded in her favour. Subsequently, she filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 68/2016, and by order dated 06.07.2018, the Learned Court directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance, merging the earlier award under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the non-applicant preferred an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 180/2023, seeking enhancement of maintenance on the ground of inflation and rising expenses, which was opposed by the applicant. However, vide order dated 18.03.2024, the Learned Court enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month, payable from the date of the application. Pursuant thereto, the non-applicant also filed an application for recovery of Rs. 73,000/-. Aggrieved by the enhancement order, the applicant has preferred the present revision before this Hon’ble Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 18.03.2024 is bad in law as well as on facts and liable to be set aside, as the Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is a poor labourer, educated only up to Class IV, with no fixed source of income, and that the non-applicant, in her cross-examination, admitted she could not produce any documentary proof regarding the alleged shop or vehicle of the applicant. The Learned Court ignored the fact that the applicant is 3 already paying Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance pursuant to earlier orders and has erroneously allowed the enhancement without cogent evidence. The impugned order is contrary to settled principles laid down by this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, and violates the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandate due consideration of overlapping jurisdictions, criteria for determining quantum, and the requirement of proper evidence. The direction to pay Rs. 3,500/- per month from the date of filing of the application, as recorded in para 15 of the impugned order, is arbitrary, unjust, and causes irreparable loss to the applicant. 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 Family Court, Mungeli, upon due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case, rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 127 Cr.P.C. in Misc. Criminal Case No. 180/2023, appreciating the fact that the cost of living had substantially increased due to inflation and rising expenses, thereby warranting enhancement of the maintenance amount earlier awarded. The Learned Court, by its reasoned order dated 18.03.2024, judiciously enhanced the monthly maintenance from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,500/-, payable from the date of the application, ensuring that the non-applicant is provided with adequate means for her sustenance in accordance with the spirit 4 and object of the beneficial provisions under the law. 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