1 2025:CGHC:41294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 848 of 2024 Smt. Anjani Tiwari W/o Lalit Tiwari Aged About 44 Years At- Laxman Nagar, Chhota Bazar, Near Telghani Naka, Ps Gudhiyari, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Lalit Tiwari S/o Late Prannath Tiwari Aged About 50 Years At- Village Uparwara, Post And Ps Abhanpur, District Raipur, (C.G.) Office Address - Through Chief Executive Office, Janpad Office, Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate appears through video conferencing, For Respondent : Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel for the applicant appears through video conferencing. Also heard Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2024 in the matter titled as "Smt. Anjani Tiwari v. Lalit Tiwari", bearing Case No. 506/23 and enhance the maintenance amount as prayed by the applicant in her application, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant preferred an application under Section 127 CrPC before the learned Family Court seeking enhancement of the maintenance earlier awarded to her under Section 125 CrPC, wherein by order dated 11.09.2014 she was granted a meager sum of Rs.1,000/- per month, which upon challenge before this Hon’ble Court was enhanced to Rs.4,000/- vide order dated 26.08.2021 in CRR/820/2014. In her application, the applicant submitted that in the past 11–12 years the cost of living has substantially increased while the respondent’s salary has risen to about Rs.45,000/-, and therefore she prayed for interim maintenance of Rs.22,500/-. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent filed his written statement denying the allegations but not disputing the income pleaded by the applicant. Both parties thereafter filed their affidavits of assets and liabilities in compliance of Rajnesh v. Neha, wherein the respondent himself admitted his salary as Rs.39,500/- but failed to produce salary slips or bank statements and, with an intent to reduce his liability, wrongly showed his married children and distant relatives as dependents. 3 Evidence was thereafter led by both parties, during which the respondent admitted ownership of agricultural land though failed to produce any document of its alleged sale and also admitted that his daughter is married despite showing her as dependent in his affidavit. The learned Family Court, despite recording respondent’s income at Rs.39,500/- per month, enhanced the maintenance by only Rs.2,000/- and awarded Rs.6,000/- per month after a lapse of more than a decade. Hence the applicant has preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and overlooking the depositions of the witnesses, has erred in passing the impugned judgment. He further submits that the initial maintenance order dated 11.09.2014 has remained unaltered for more than 11–12 years and yet the enhancement granted is only a meager sum of Rs.2,000/-, which is grossly inadequate in view of the manifold rise in livelihood expenses during this period, the Family Court further failed to appreciate that the respondent had falsely shown his son and daughter as dependents despite admitting in cross-examination that his daughter is married and his son is more than 30 years of age, thereby clearly establishing that except the applicant, the respondent bears no responsibility. He also submits that the respondent, with intent to mislead the court, projected his distant relatives as dependents, but in cross-examination admitted that such relatives possess a separate ration card, which fact alone 4 demonstrates his deliberate attempt to conceal his true financial capacity. He further submits that from a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that no cogent reasons or grounds have been assigned by the trial court for awarding such a nominal enhancement, the impugned order thus suffers from serious legal infirmity and warrants modification by this Hon’ble Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings, affidavits of assets and liabilities filed in compliance of Rajnesh v. Neha, and the oral evidence adduced by both parties, has rightly exercised its discretion in enhancing the applicant’s maintenance. The learned Court took into account the fact that the applicant was earlier granted Rs.1,000/- per month under Section 125 CrPC by order dated 11.09.2014, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.4,000/- by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2021 in CRR/820/2014, and further considered the applicant’s plea for enhancement under Section 127 CrPC on account of increase in cost of living and respondent’s salary. The Court, however, found that while the respondent admitted earning Rs.39,500/- per month, 5 he has responsibilities towards his family, including his children, and that the applicant failed to bring on record any conclusive material to establish that the respondent’s income was Rs.45,000/- as alleged. It was also observed that the respondent had admitted ownership of agricultural land but claimed the same to have been sold, and no evidence was produced by the applicant to disprove such claim. Thus, balancing the circumstances of both sides, the learned Family Court justly enhanced the maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month, which reflects a reasonable increase after due application of judicial mind and cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan