1 2025:CGHC:41296 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 776 of 2024 Harshamani Pandey W/o Shri Niranjan Pandey, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Ushribeda, Police Station Lohandiguha, District Bastar, C.G. ... Applicant versus Niranjan Pandey S/o Shri Narayan Pandey Aged About 55 Years Government Teacher, R/o Government Middle School Chandragiri Block And Tehsil Darbha, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Criminal MJC Case No.41/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C and directed the respondent/husband to pay of Rs. 6,000/- per month. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and respondent are PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.18 15:08:31 +0530 2 legally wedded husband and wife. By order dated 08.04.2004, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- each to the applicant and her minor daughter. Since then, the applicant and her daughter have been living separately from the respondent. In the year 2013–14, the applicant filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance, which was allowed vide order dated 12.03.2014, enhancing the amount to Rs. 3,000/- for the applicant and Rs. 3,000/- for her daughter, totaling Rs. 6,000/- per month. Due to significant inflation between 2014 and 2022, the prices of essential commodities such as food, medicine, clothing, house rent, and electricity bills have increased substantially. As a result, the applicant faced financial hardship, and the maintenance amount granted earlier became insufficient. In 2017, the applicant's daughter was married. The respondent failed to provide any financial assistance for the marriage, forcing the applicant to take a loan, which remains unpaid due to her poor financial condition. Additionally, the applicant suffers from high blood pressure and diabetes and frequently travels from Lohandiguha Usribeda to Jagdalpur city for treatment, incurring further medical and transportation expenses. The cost of her rented accommodation has also increased. The respondent is a government employee and, as per his own admission, draws a net monthly salary of Rs. 78,492/- after deductions (gross salary Rs. 84,492/-). Despite this admitted income, the respondent failed to provide sufficient justification as to why he cannot pay the enhanced maintenance amount requested by the applicant. However, the learned Family 3 Court only increased the maintenance to Rs. 3,000/-, which remains grossly inadequate given the current circumstances. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/wife submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the admitted fact that the respondent earns a net salary of Rs. 78,492/- per month. The monthly enhancement of only Rs. 3,000/- is not only inadequate but also unjust, especially considering that the applicant is suffering from several health issues. For her treatment, she is required to travel from her village to Jagdalpur City, incurring significant medical and transportation expenses. In such circumstances, it is extremely difficult for her to maintain herself with the meager amount granted by the learned Family Court. Furthermore, the learned Family Court committed an error by not properly interpreting and applying Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in its true sense and spirit. The learned Family Court has also erred in law by awarding an enhancement that is both insufficient and contrary to the legal and factual position of the case. 4. 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 16.05.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Criminal MJC Case No.41/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C and directed the respondent/husband to pay of Rs. 6,000/- per month, and he further submits that there is no 4 illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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, 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 present 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