1 2025:CGHC:48794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 670 of 2021 Mithlesh Singh S/o Tilakeshwar Singh Aged About 28 Years Caste Kanwar, Occupation Service, R/o Bhalu Kachar, Post Bargawan, Police Station Darima, Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Isika D/o Mithlesh Singh Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Prathibha Singh W/o Mithlesh Singh Aged About 26 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Darima, Police Station Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore praved that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside or suitably modify the impugned order dated 23.06.2021 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 196/2016 by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the wife and minor daughter of the applicant, Mithlesh Singh, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was partly allowed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 24.06.2016 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 24/2015, whereby the applicant was directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to the minor daughter, while the wife’s claim for maintenance was rejected. Thereafter, the minor daughter, through her mother, filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, contending that the earlier amount was insufficient to meet her needs and stating that the applicant, working as an Agriculture Extension Officer, was drawing a salary of Rs.27,000/- as per his 2015-16 salary slip. The applicant filed a reply denying the allegations, asserting that the child, being only two years old, did not require such expenses and further contending that the child’s mother, Prathibha Singh, was a government employee earning a substantial salary and was equally responsible for the child’s maintenance. He also stated that the earlier maintenance amount was being paid regularly. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court held that the minor child is entitled to live with the same dignity and standard as her father and, considering the applicant’s financial status, enhanced the maintenance amount 3 from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. Aggrieved by this enhancement, the applicant has filed the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. He contends that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate that the minor respondent is residing with her mother, who is employed as a Shikshakarmi and has sufficient means to contribute equally towards the maintenance and upbringing of the child. It is argued that placing the entire financial burden solely upon the applicant is unjust, unreasonable, and not in accordance with the spirit of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which imposes a shared responsibility on both parents to maintain their minor child. Learned counsel further submits that the enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month is highly excessive, disproportionate to the actual needs and living expenses of the minor child, and beyond the applicant’s financial capacity. He argues that the learned Family Court should have considered the fact that the mother of the respondent, being a government servant with a stable income, has an equal duty to bear the expenses of the child. However, without taking these aspects into consideration, the trial Court has unreasonably fixed an enhanced amount, which causes undue hardship to the applicant. Hence, it is prayed that the order of enhancement be quashed or suitably modified to a reasonable amount in the interest of justice. 4 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 Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (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, after careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and submissions of both parties, rightly enhanced the maintenance amount for the minor daughter from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. The Court correctly observed that the minor child is entitled to live a life with dignity and a standard comparable to that of her father. Considering that the applicant, Mithlesh Singh, is employed as an Agriculture Extension Officer earning a regular salary, the Court appropriately exercised its discretion under Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C. to ensure that the financial needs of the child are adequately met. The enhancement was made after due appreciation of the applicant’s financial capacity and the reasonable requirements of the minor child, thereby safeguarding the child’s welfare and best interests. 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 5 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 be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan