1 2025:CGHC:24945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 233 of 2017 • B.Kameshwar Rao S/o Late B. Lakshnna Rao @ B. Lannarao Prasad, R/o Jhopdapara, Loko Kholi, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus 1. B. Raja Rao S/o B. Kameshwar Rao, Aged About 15 Years Minor Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Anita W/o B. Kameshwar Rao, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Jhopdapara, Loko Kholi, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 2. Ku. B. Rani D/o B. Kameshwar Rao, Aged About 12 Years Minor Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Anita W/o B. Kameshwar Rao, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Jhopdapara, Loko Kholi, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 3. Ku. B. Durga D/o B. Kameshwar Rao, Aged About 16 Years Minor Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Anita W/o B. Kameshwar Rao, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Jhopdapara, Loko Kholi, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.20 11:32:13 +0530 2 dated 04.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. Case No.05/2016, whereby the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents/applicants has been partly allowed and it is directed to the non-applicant/B. Kameshwar Rao (applicant herein) that he shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month instead of Rs.800/- to Ku. B. Rani/applicant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) from 04.11.2016 as maintenance amount. Hence, this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, the respondents/applicants are minor children of non-applicant/B. Kameshwar Rao and they are living separately from him. The respondents/applicants have filed application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount. The learned Family Court has unnecessary enhanced the amount to Rs.3,000/- in place of Rs.800/- in favour of respondent No.2/applicant no.2 vide order dated 04.11.2016, which is contrary to law. The applicant/non-applicant filed a reply before the learned Family Court and stated that he is unemployed, therefore, the application filed by the respondents/applicants under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. be dismissed and the impugned order be set-aside in the interest of justice. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant herein submits that the impugned order dated 04.11.2016 is bad in law, perverse, erroneous, therefore, is liable to be set-aside. It is further stated that the learned Family Court without considering the fact that the applicant/non-applicant is unemployed, has enhanced the amount and he is not in a position to pay the enhanced amount to respondents/applicants. The applicant herein has already been paying Rs.2,500/- in favour of the respondents, and now that the learned Family Court has unnecessary enhanced the amount from Rs.800/- to 3 Rs.3,000/- in favour of respondent No.2, which is contrary to law and unjustified. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 04.11.2016 passed by the learned Family Court may be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parities, perused the impugned order and records of the Family Court/Trial Court. 6. From perusal of the impugned order and the evidence available on records, it transpires that the applicant/non-applicant being a railway employee and an auto driver used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month and non-applicant No.2/Ku. B. Rani being the student of Class 9 is required to receive additional amount for her expenses relating to her studies, medical service and other items which cannot be compensated by the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.800/- per month which is being provided to her. Thus, the learned Family Court has increased the monthly maintenance amount to Rs.3,000/- from Rs.800/- per month in favour of applicant No.2/Ku. B. Rani and the application filed by the applicants/respondents under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. was allowed in favour of applicant No.2/respondent No.2, however, dismissed with respect to applicant No.1 and 3. 7. 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. 4 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as original record, to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action, if any. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti