1 2025:CGHC:28282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 620 of 2025 Rajaram S/o Shri Bhagwat Aged About 51 Years (At Present 65 Years), R/o Qr. No. 5 Nowrozabad, District Umariya (M.P.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Sanju Bai W/o Shri Rajaram Aged About 44 Years (Now 57 Years At Present) R/o Ward No.9, Mauharpara, Manendragarh, District M.C.B. (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Sunita D/o Shri Rajaram Aged About 17 Years (23 Years At Present), Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sanju Bai W/o Shri Rajaram R/o Ward No.9, Mauharpara, Manendragarh, District – M.C.B. (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amitabh Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amitabh Verma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 15/2024, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 whereby the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya, allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC for enhancement of maintenance filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that Kumari Sunita (Respondent No.2) approached the Family Court for enhancement of monthly maintenance stating that after Corona period cost of living has increased and stating that Rajaram has retired and has received gratuity and provident fund of Rs.80 lakhs and went to his home at Nowrowzabad, also Rajaram is receiving Rs.26,000/- per month and has fixed the gratuity amount as fixed deposit thus, claiming Rs.10,000/- per month. Family Court has increased the amount from Rs.3500/- to Rs.5000/-. Respondent No.2 was getting Rs.1200/- per month as per order dated 07.04.2011. Respondent No.2 was receiving an enhanced amount of total sum of Rs. 3500/- per month as per order dated 15.10.2015. Rajaram had submitted written statement stating that he is receiving pension of Rs.15000/- per month and he is residing in rented house of Rs.3000/- per month and maintaining his wife and son, also giving Rs.3500/- per month to Respondent No.2. Also, the appellant has constructed the house at Manendragarh in which respondents are living at present. Due to old age appellant has medical expenses to bear on his own from his pension. Hence, this revision. 3 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 has retired in the year 2020, his salary was Rs.60,000/- per month, after retirement he is getting pension of Rs.17000/- approx per month. Thus, the income of appellant has reduced therefore enhancement in awarded amount is contrary to the law. The applicant has liability of his wife and a son and his own medical expenses. Thus, appellant has been paying Rs. 3500/- per month without any issue to respondent No.2 but enhancement upto Rs.5000/- per month is too much for him to bear. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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, and considering the conditions of the respondents, 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 8. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar