1 2025:CGHC:30215 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 804 of 2025 Smt. Mala Pradhan W/o Shri Balaram Pradhan Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Pisoda, Tehsil - Champa District- Janjgir - Chhattisgarh Present Addres C/o Tirithram Pradhan, Chantideeh Sanjay Nagar, Ward No. 59 District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Balaram Pradhan S/o Shri Shatruhan Pradhan Aged About 51 Years Crane Operator At B.S.P. (Bhilai Steel Plant) Department Sms - 1 Personal Number 151170 R/o Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal 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 modify/set-aside the impugned order dated 24.05.2025 (Annexure RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 A/1) passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg CG., in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 90/2023 and allow the application of the applicant u/Sec. 127 of Cr.P.C., 1973, in the ends of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and non-applicant were married on 01.05.1996 as per Hindu rites in Village Pisoda, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir, Chhattisgarh, and two children were born from the wedlock. Despite cohabiting under one roof, the non- applicant filed for divorce in 2005 and obtained an ex-parte decree, pursuant to which the applicant was ousted from the matrimonial home. Upon gaining knowledge of the decree, the applicant filed an appeal (FAM No. 45/2015), which was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Family Court, Durg, where it is presently pending. Due to the hardship faced post-ousting, the applicant filed a maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in 2007, resulting in an order of Rs. 1,500/- per month on 17.01.2008. This was subsequently enhanced under Section 127 Cr.P.C. to Rs. 2,000/- in 2010 and then to Rs. 5,000/- in 2015. In view of rising living costs, medical expenses due to health issues caused by alleged cruelty from the non-applicant, and his increased income (approx. ₹1,10,000/- per month at Bhilai Steel Plant), the applicant again filed for enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C., seeking Rs. 20,000/- per month. The non-applicant opposed the same citing financial burdens including responsibilities towards his aged 3 parents, second wife, and children from the second marriage, while asserting that the applicant resides in a low-cost village. Vide order dated 24.05.2025, the Family Court partly allowed the application, enhancing the maintenance by ₹3,000/-, totaling ₹8,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the meager enhancement, the applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition, seeking further enhancement on the grounds that the current amount is insufficient to meet her basic needs and medical expenses in light of the prevailing cost of living and the non-applicant’s financial capacity. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant respectfully submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the significant and continuing rise in the cost of living and essential commodities since the last maintenance enhancement in 2015, rendering the enhanced amount of ₹8,000/- per month grossly inadequate. The Court did not properly consider the substantial increase in the non-applicant’s income, who now earns approximately ₹1,10,000/- per month from Bhilai Steel Plant, almost double of what he was earning in 2015, while the maintenance awarded does not proportionately reflect this rise. The applicant, suffering from multiple health ailments due to past domestic abuse, has been undergoing regular treatment since 2022 at hospitals in Bilaspur and has been compelled to relocate to a rented flat, incurring additional monthly expenses. Being a single, unemployed woman with no independent income, she is wholly dependent on maintenance for survival and is often forced to rely on her aged parents for financial support. The Family Court failed to 4 adequately assess her deteriorating health, increased financial vulnerability, and changed circumstances as envisaged under Section 127 Cr.P.C., and passed the impugned order mechanically, without proper reasoning. Despite acknowledging in the impugned order that the non-applicant’s income has doubled and his financial obligations are minimal since both children are now independent and he avails of free medical care and housing the Court enhanced the maintenance by a mere ₹3,000/-, which is arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.05.2025 deserves to be modified suitably to ensure just and reasonable maintenance in light of the applicant’s present needs and the non-applicant’s capacity. 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 learned Family Court has rightly exercised its discretion under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. while partly allowing the applicant’s application for enhancement of maintenance. Taking into account the prevailing cost of living, the applicant’s medical condition, and other relevant circumstances, the Court deemed it appropriate to enhance the existing maintenance amount by ₹3,000/-, thereby fixing the monthly maintenance at ₹8,000/-. The Court has judiciously considered the competing claims of both parties, the applicant’s financial hardships and medical expenses on one hand, and the non-applicant’s obligations towards his aged parents, 5 second wife, and children from the second marriage on the other. Furthermore, the Court has taken into account the fact that the applicant resides in a relatively low-cost area and found that a moderate increase would meet the ends of justice without placing an undue financial burden on the non-applicant. Hence, the impugned order dated 24.05.2025 reflects a fair and balanced approach, keeping in view the principles laid down under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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