1 2025:CGHC:29140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 920 of 2019 Shrawan Kumar Vastrakar S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Vastrakar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Pendrai, Police Station Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Reeta Vastrakar And Another W/o Shrawan Kumar Vastrakar Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bharari, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Prarthana Vastrakar D/o Shrawan Kumar Vastrakar Aged About 3 Years (Now Aged About 5 Years), Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Reeta Vastrakar, R/o Village Bharari, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 03.07.2019 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.409/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the non- applicants and enhanced the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.4000/- per months to the non-applicants. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is admitted fact that the applicant and non-applicant no. 1 are legally wedded wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 25.04.2012 and out of their wedlock, the non-applicant no. 2 was born on 08.11.2014 and at present the applicant and non- applicants are living separately. The non-applicants separately filed two applications under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, for grant of maintenance and the same were registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 519/2014 "Reeta Vastrakar Vs. Shravan Kumar Vastrakar" and Misc. Criminal Case No. 80/2015 "Prarthana Vastrakar Vs. Shravan Kumar Vastrakar". For want of knowledge of aforesaid proceedings, the applicant could not appear before the learned Family Court and due to non-appearance of applicant, the learned Family Court proceeded ex-parte against the applicant on 20.06.2016 and vide order dated 04.08.2016, the learned Family Court allowed maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1500/- & 1000/- respectively in favour of non- applicants. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for alteration of maintenance amount by way of reducing the maintenance amount 3 looking to pathetic financial condition of the applicant. The non- applicants also filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for alteration of maintenance amount by way of enhancement of the maintenance amount. The learned Family Court has recorded the statements of parties, the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and allowed the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicants vide order dated 03.07.2019 and enhanced the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in the facts well as evidence, therefore liable to be set-aside/quashed. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is pursuing his Law Degree and he is required study fees and has also failed to appreciate that the applicant has no source of income and he is hardly paying the study fee by borrowing the amount from his relatives. The learned Family Court has also failed to appreciate that for want of source of income, the applicant is not able to pay the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court in favour of non- applicants and earlier the ex-parte order was passed against the applicant and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2500/- per month in favour of non-applicants and has further enhanced the maintenance to the tune of Rs.6000/-. Lastly, the applicant is suffering from high blood pressure and sugar and he is taking 4 regular treatment. The non-applicant no. 1 is doing stitching work and she is able to maintain herself and the parents of the non- applicant no. 1 is in strong financial position. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants 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 parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicants and enhanced the maintenance to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month observing that according to Section 127 of the CrPC, if there is a change in the circumstances of the person receiving or giving monthly allowance for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, the Magistrate can make changes in the allowance. Earlier, in favour of the non-applicants, under section 125 CrPC, in both Miscellaneous Criminal Case A-519/14 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case A-80/15, by order dated 04.08.16, Rs. 1500/- in favour of non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 1000/- in favour of Non-applicant No.2 has been ordered as monthly maintenance amount. Thereafter, the present case was presented on 14.03.18. i.e. after three years since the previous 5 order. The time has come for the education of daughter Ms. Prarthana Vastrakar. In such a situation, naturally, additional expenditure will have to be incurred on her education, besides, due to rising price index, other expenses have also increased. Considering all these factors, the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance to the non-applicants to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil