1 2025:CGHC:27697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 769 of 2019 Vasudev Prajapati S/o Rajaram Prajapati Aged About 49 Years R/o B.T.I. Baroda Chowk, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sunita Kumari W/o Vasudev Prajapati, Aged About 37 Years R/o Durga, Chowk, Krishna Nagar, Supela, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Advocate, as well as Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Advocate, as well as Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 923/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg, partly allowed the application for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent and directed the applicant that he has to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner and respondent has solemnized their marriage on 28.02.2008 according to Hindu Custom and Ritual at Krishna Nagar, Bhilai. The respondent had instituted the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. and seeking enhancement of maintenance amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month on the ground that of enhancement of market value. The present applicant has denied the application and specifically stated that he is not higher paid employee and he is also care taker of his old parents, therefore, application filed by the respondent is liable to be set-aside. The learned Family Court after appreciation of evidence and hearing the argument of the parties, passed the impugned order dated 28.03.2019, whereby the learned Family Court, has allowed the application of the respondent and enhancing the maintenance amount of Rs. 12,000/- to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court after appreciation of evidence and hearing the argument of the parties, passed the impugned order dated 28.03.2019, whereby the learned Family Court, has allowed the application of the respondent and enhancing the maintenance amount of Rs. 12,000/- to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. The learned Family Court, has not properly appreciated the evidence, and the learned Family Court, have failed to see that, the respondents are not able to prove the income of the applicant. the learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance amount in favour of respondent is higher side looking to the condition of the petitioner. The learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and material, to adopt the arbitrary manner, allowed the 3 application of the respondents is illegal. The respondent has not proved the cruelty made by the petitioner, but in fact she has left the house of the present on petitioner on own motion. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 923/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg, partly allowed the application for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent and directed the applicant that he has to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 9. 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