1 2025:CGHC:32945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 794 of 2022 1. Smt. Ahilya Yadav W/o Pardeshi Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Near Harsagar Talab, Birkona Police Station - Koni, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Beena Yadav W/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 18 Years D/o Pardeshi Yadav, R/o Jaiswal Gali No.2, 03/b Hazari Chowk Mohalla, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Pardeshi Yadav S/o Late Shobharam Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Nehru Nagar Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Devesh G.Kela, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 15.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge of Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.956/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the respondent/husband that PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.17 14:06:55 +0530 2 he pay of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and rejected the application with respect to applicant No.2/daughter. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicants had previously filed an application under Section 127 of the CrPC before the Family Court Bilaspur, which resulted in an order dated 18.07.2016, directing the respondent to pay maintenance of ₹3,500 per month to each applicants. The applicants again filed an application under Section 127 of the CrPC on 16.10.2018, seeking enhancement of maintenance to ₹15,000 to ₹20,000 per month for applicant No. 1. They claimed that the respondent, a peon in a government college, earns a salary of ₹50,000 per month, and the current maintenance amount is insufficient. The respondent appeared and filed a reply, admitting his job as a peon but stating his actual salary is ₹26,000 per month. He claimed to have a term loan of ₹4,58,000, pays a monthly premium of ₹11,286, and has other expenses, including rent and his son's college fees. The Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay ₹5,000 per month to applicant No. 1. The applicants have filed a revision petition challenging this order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the order of the learned Presiding Judge of Family Court Bilaspur is bad in law and on facts. The learned Judge has failed to see that the respondent was receiving the salary of Rs. 26,509/- per month at the time of filing of application i.e. 13.11.2018 as per his salary slip but at the time when evidence of applicant No.1 was recorded she received information that respondent was getting the salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. The learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the increase in the prices index from year 2018 to 2022 and also increase in the salary of respondent while deciding the application for enhancement of maintenance amount. 3 The order of the interim maintenance deserves to be set aside and the maintenance claimed in the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. deserve to be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that it is confirmed that the marriage of applicant No.2- Beena Yadav/daughter was solemnized on 05.05.2017 with Santosh Yadav. Therefore, the responsibility of providing maintenance to applicant No.2 has fallen on her husband Santosh Yadav. Applicant Pardeshi Yadav had earlier presented an application under Section 127 (2) (3) CrPC. In which an order was passed to stop the deduction of Rs. 3500/- per month from Pardeshi Yadav's salary for the maintenance of applicant No.2. Therefore, applicant No.2 is not entitled to receive maintenance amount. Further, Keeping in view the income earning capacity of the applicant and other possible liabilities, the monthly maintenance allowance received by the applicant No.1/wife is changed by Rs 3,500 / - with this increase that the applicant will pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance amount to applicant No.01 Mrs. Ahilya Yadav. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti