1 2025:CGHC:24959 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 382 of 2017 Smt. Aruna Dubey W/o Arun Dubey Aged About 37 Years R/o Bauripara City- Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Arun Dubey S/o Bali Ram Dubey Aged About 40 Years Occupation, Government Servant, R/o Kewara Police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. No one appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 enhance the maintenance amount awarded to the applicant suitably in terms of the amount pleaded in her application filed under section 127 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 4,000 per month, as granted vide order dated 17.01.2014 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 163/2012. She also filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., stating that the non-applicant, her husband, frequently fails to pay the awarded amount on time. She further submitted that he is posted as Principal at Government Middle School, Parsodi Lakhanpur, District Surguja (C.G.), earning Rs. 48,750 per month, and owns agricultural land and shops at Police Line, Ambikapur, therefore he has sufficient means and the maintenance should be enhanced to Rs. 10,000 per month. The non-applicant appeared before the Family Court, denied the applicant’s claims, and alleged that the applicant’s father has sufficient means to maintain her and that he does not earn enough for his own livelihood. After recording evidence, the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur held the applicant entitled to enhanced maintenance of Rs. 4,500 per month. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 04.03.2017, is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, warranting enhancement of maintenance. He submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances 3 of the case. The learned trial court ought to have considered that the relationship between the parties is undisputed and should have awarded just and proper maintenance to the applicant. It has been proved through cogent evidence that the applicant is living separately for sufficient cause, and the non-applicant earns Rs. 48,750 per month as his salary, as shown in his salary certificate (Annexure A/4), and also has income from his own property. Therefore, he has sufficient means to provide appropriate maintenance as prayed by the applicant. However, the court awarded only Rs. 4,500 per month, which is inadequate to meet the cost of living in the present circumstances. The applicant is seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount to a reasonable and just figure to enable her to survive with dignity. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the non- applicant, Arun Dubey, who is husband of the applicant, is employed as a Principal Teacher with a monthly salary of Rs. 51,592/-, and owns additional properties including a shop, house, and agricultural land. Further the earlier maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month, granted in 2014, is insufficient due to rising living costs and her medical expenses for diabetes and hypertension. The trial court, considering inflation, increased living expenses, and the rise in the non-applicant’s salary, found it just and proper to enhance the maintenance to Rs.4,500/- per month and directed payment from 4 the date of the order, which is fair and reasonable. Therefore, order passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, district- Surguja, (C.G.), is just and proper, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this revision petition. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan