1 2025:CGHC:20923-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 161 of 2025 Yuvraj S/o Shri Dileshwar Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Banja, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Nirashpati W/o Shri Yuvraj Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Banja, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For appellant : Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent : None {Hon’ble (Smt.) Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} (Order in Chamber dated 07/05/2025) Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J Heard on admission. 2. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (henceforth “Act of 1984”) has been filed against the order dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Family Court, Surajpur in Misc. Civil Suit No. 03/2023 by which the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth “Act of 1955”) has been rejected. 2 3. Brief facts: The respondent/wife had filed an application under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1955 before the Family Court, Surajpur which was registered as Misc. Civil Suit No. 05/2019 against the appellant/husband which was disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between parties before the National Lok Adalat, Surajpur vide order dated 14.09.2019 increasing the maintenance amount to Rs. 5,000/- in her favour. During the pendency of that application the appellant/husband was a teacher in a government school and he retired from service on 31.01.2022. According to the appellant/husband, for the present he is leading his life on the income derived from pension. It is stated that the respondent/wife is working as a part time sweeper in a school and gets Rs. 2,790/- per month as remuneration. Apart from that, she is having 0.30 hectare of agriculture land from which also she earns Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum, and as such she is able to maintain herself whereas on account of considerable decrease in his income, it is very difficult for him to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to her. Therefore, he prayed for reduction of the same to Rs. 1,500/- per month from that of Rs. 5,000/-. Said application for reduction was resisted by the respondent/wife by filing written statement where barring the admitted facts she has denied all the plaint averments. In the additional pleadings, it is pleaded on her behalf that the appellant/husband received the ancestral property in succession which has been transferred by him to the sons born from second wife but still the same is being controlled and used by the appellant/husband, and being so the amount being paid to her is not required to be reduced.. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court framed the following three issues:- 3 (i) Whether in the changed circumstances, sufficient ground is there to reduce the maintenance amount granted by order dated 14.09.2019 p assed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 05/2019? (ii) Relief and cost? 5. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence of the witnesses, learned Family Court decided the issue No.1 in negative and while deciding the issue No.2, dismissed the application of the appellant/husband filed under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1955. Hence this appeal. 7. Counsel for the appellant/husband submits that the order impugned passed by learned Family Court is perverse and not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the Court below has committed an error in not considering the fact that there is change in the circumstances for the present as at the time when an amount of Rs. 5000/- was granted in favour of the respondent/wife, the appellant/husband was in service but as of now after his retirement he is depending on the pension alone in which he is required to take care of his second wife and his two sons born from her. He submits that out of six children that he has, four daughters are married and two sons are living with him and his second wife Shivmangli. He submits that both the appellant and his second wife Shivmangli are at present in their advanced age and not keeping well. Keeping all this in view it is submitted that the amount being paid to respondent/wife may be reduced to Rs. 1,500/- from that of Rs. 5,000/- by allowing this appeal. 8. Heard counsel for the appellant/husband and perused the material on record. 9. Appellant/husband has admitted that he is getting monthly pension of Rs. 4 36,000/-. He has also admitted that he has six children out of whom four daughters are married and two sons are living with him and his second wife. He has also admitted that there is some land in the name of his son Jayant. Learned Family Court has also observed that though the appellant/husband has taken the ground of illness but no specific ailment, whether serious or otherwise, has been disclosed by him, and no document as such either pertaining to him or his wife has been filed. The finding recorded by the Family Court that the respondent/wife is getting Rs. 2,790/- as remuneration from a school where she works as part time sweeper and also has some land, but the pension of Rs. 36,000/- per month received by the appellant/husband cannot be said to be a decrease in his income, appears to be fully justified. The hike in present day standard of living and therefore refusal to reduce the maintenance amount by the Family Court, is also a well reasoned approach. Rejection of the application filed by the appellant/husband for decreasing the maintenance amount being paid to respondent/wife to Rs. 1,500/- from Rs. 5,000/- by the order impugned is well founded and calls for no interference by this Court. 10. Learned Family Court thus decided the issues in favour of the respondent/wife after appraisal of the evidence before it. Being this, the order impugned is hereby affirmed. Appeal thus being without any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.05.08 14:20:13 +0530