1 2025:CGHC:30971 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 115 of 2019 Rakesh Kumar S/o Gulam Ram Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Tilai Chouhan Post Bahura P. S. Vindhyachal Tahsil Gayapur District Mirjapur U. P., District : Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Rakesh Kumar R/o Q. No. 3-A, Road No. 34 Sector 11-Khursipar Zone 2, P. S. Chhawani, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the 3rd Additional Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.345/2014, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 of CrPC filed by the respondent and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.800/- to Rs.1,000/-. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent had previously filed an application Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registered as MJC No. 54/2002. On 03.04.2003, the Court ordered the applicant to pay monthly AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 maintenance of Rs.800 to the respondent. Given the applicant’s substantial income of approximately Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, and the respondent’s lack of financial resources, the respondent is finding it difficult to sustain herself on the current maintenance amount. The respondent therefore seeks an enhancement of the maintenance amount to Rs.5,000/- per month, payable by the applicant. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has enhanced the maintenance amount as aforementioned. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in considering the fact that as per the compromise between the parties, the respondent was granted a divorce on the basis of mutual consent, and the applicant had already paid Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent. Given that both parties have been residing separately after the divorce, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse and contrary to the facts and evidence on record, and is liable to be set aside. Additionally, the learned trial court has erred in enhancing the maintenance amount by Rs.200/- and fixing it at Rs.10,000/- without considering the material facts and documents on record. Hence, the order is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 3 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 of CrPC filed by the respondent and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.800/- to Rs.1,000/- observing that the parties may have entered into a mutual divorce agreement, but the same does not extinguish the respondent’s right to claim maintenance. The Family Court further observed the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, concluded that the maintenance amount should be enhanced. 6. Considering the submissions 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 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. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil