1 2025:CGHC:27713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 785 of 2019 Babulal Basant S/o Baliram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bamhanidih, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Prembai W/o Babulal Basant Aged About 40 Years R/o Khokhra, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.107/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 127 CrPC of the respondent/wife and awarded maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to respondent. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.27 10:40:24 +0530 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the parties took place in the year 1989 according to Hindu Rituals at Vill-Sarwani, Dist-Janjgir-Champa. Thereafter, they lived together for two years out of the wedlock a female child was born on 10.12.1992. After two years of marriage the respondent is living separately an earlier she had filed an application U/s 125 of Criminal Procedure Code which was allowed by the learned Family Court Janjgir, Dist-Janjgir-Champa. Thereafter, the respondent/ wife had filed an application U/s 127 of Criminal Procedure Code registered as M.C.R.C. No. 208/2015 which was allowed by the Family Court and awarded maintenance of Rs. 5000/- vide order dated 01.10.2015.The respondent/applicant again filed an application U/s 127 of Criminal Procedure Code registered as M.C.R.C. No. 107/2018 and submitted before the learned Family Court, that the Rs. 5000/- is not sufficient for her livelihood therefore the amount may be enhanced. The respondent/applicant further submitted that the marriage of her daughter Suman is solemnized and she got a girl child out of her wedlock, therefore the expenses of the respondent is enhanced, she further submitted that she is living in rental house and she has no source of income on the other hand the applicant (Babulal Basant) is working as Lecturer getting salary 70,000/- per month and additional income 300 bags of paddy from 10 acres of land which is recorded in the name of the father of Babulal. The respondent further submitted that due to above mentioned reason the respondent is entitled to get 20,000/- per month as maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Judge Family Court 3 is illegal, improper and not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned presiding Judge Family Court erred in holding that the Rs. 5,000/- is not sufficient for livelihood of the respondent therefore she is entitled for enhanced amount Rs. 7,000/- per month. The learned Presiding Judge Family Court erred in ignoring that this Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent Prembai vide judgment dated 13.11.2018 and granted Rs. 35,000/- as permanent alimony therefore the respondent applicant is not entitled for any further maintenance amount. Further, the respondent/applicant is working as Nurse and she has sufficient source of income therefore also she is not entitled for the enhanced maintenance amount. The learned Presiding Judge Family Court has allowed the application for enhancement of maintenance amount without considering the evidence available on record, therefore the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent/wife has requested to provide monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- . The respondent has failed to prove that the respondent’s monthly income is four times more than the desired amount. Therefore, it is not possible to provide monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent from the applicant. Further, it has been three years since the order was passed, in these three years the prices of daily commodities have increased and the applicant's salary has also increased, on the above basis, there is sufficient basis in the case to increase the monthly maintenance amount to the 4 respondent. Therefore, the amount of monthly maintenance to the respondent is increased by Rs. 5,000/- and the respondent is provided monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- from the applicant. Thus, the application of the respondent under section 127 Cr.P.C. is partially accepted. Consequently, on the basis of the above conclusions, the application submitted by the respondent is accepted and keeping in view the social and economic conditions of both the parties, it is ordered that the applicant is to pay 7,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the said order. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti