1 2025:CGHC:28599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 762 of 2025 Smt. Uma Dewangan W/o Dwarika Prasad Dewangan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post Kharora, Tahsil And P.S. Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Dwarika Prasad Dewangan S/o Shri Judawan Dewangan Aged About 55 Years R/o Motipur, Tahsil/ P.S. Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Khushbu Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this revision when the matter is called for hearing today. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.28 16:17:59 +0530 2 pleased to allow this criminal revision and modify/enhance impugned maintenance order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 228/2022 and also may kindly be granted maintenance amount sought by the applicant in application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for seeking granting maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and the respondent solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals, and since then, they were living together peacefully as husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, one daughter was born. In brief, the application stated that although the applicant and the respondent initially shared a cordial relationship, after some time, the respondent started harassing and mentally torturing the applicant by demanding dowry and using filthy language against her. Due to this harassment and mental torture, the applicant began residing separately in a rented house and has no source of income. The applicant has been incurring significant expenses towards household needs, the education of her daughter, medical treatment, and other necessities, amounting to approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month. Being a housewife, the applicant is unable to bear such expenses. On the other hand, the respondent is running a brick business from which he earns around Rs. 40,000/- per month, and he also owns 5 acres of agricultural land, generating an additional 3 annual income of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Hence, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the respondent. 5. The respondent filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the said application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, vide its order dated 30.06.2008 in M.J.C. No. 209/2008, granted a very low maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. 6. The respondent filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the said application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide its order dated 24.02.2025, rejected the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order is dissatisfactory, illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the settled law. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The applicant left her matrimonial home due to the cruelty inflicted upon her by the respondent. Furthermore, the respondent has solemnized another marriage, due to which the applicant has suffered both 4 mentally and physically. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. appropriately and granted an insufficient increase in the maintenance amount, which is against the settled principles of law. The learned Family Court overlooked the fact that the applicant is facing severe financial hardship and is in a poor economic condition, which affects the education and welfare of her daughter. The impugned maintenance order is unsatisfactory, and hence, the maintenance amount deserves to be enhanced. The learned Family Court ignored the statements of respondent No. 1 and passed an impugned order contrary to law. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- granted to the applicant is insufficient for her survival and livelihood. The applicant is incurring significant expenses towards household needs, medical care, and survival, and being a housewife without any source of income, she is unable to bear these expenses. He also submits that the learned Family Court overlooked the respondent’s admission that the applicant is his legally wedded wife. The respondent is running a brick business from which he earns approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month, and he also owns 5 acres of agricultural land generating an additional annual income of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Despite this, the learned Family Court dismissed the applicant’s application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is facing severe financial difficulties due to the inadequate maintenance amount granted by the learned Family Court. Considering the above circumstances, the respondent is financially capable of paying a higher maintenance amount, and hence, the maintenance amount sought by the applicant in her application under 5 Section 127 of Cr.P.C. should be granted. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is respectfully prayed that the maintenance amount may kindly be enhanced in the interest of justice. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant and awarded Rs. 2,000/- per month. Subsequently, the applicant preferred an application for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the CrPC, which was rejected by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. 10. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek