1 2025:CGHC:27698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1043 of 2019 Smt. Sunita Kumari W/o Vasudev Prajapati Aged About 37 Years R/o Durga Chowk, Krishna Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Vasudev Prajapati S/o Rajaram Prajapati Aged About 49 Years R/o B.T.I. Badoda Chowk, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Advocate, as well as Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Advocate, as well as Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Criminal MJC No. 923/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg, partly allowed the application for enhancement of maintenance filed by the applicant. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant has married with the respondent on 28.02.2008 in Krishna Nagar Supela Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) by following Hindu Rites i.e. Saptpadi. It is also not in dispute that respondent is working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I and posted in Gariyaband District there is also certificate of salary on record from Block Education Officer certifying the salary of respondent at Rs. 35,780/- per month. The Family Court on evidence has ordered for increase of maintenance amount at Rs. 2,000/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- only w.e.f. 28.03.2019 i.e. date of order, in fact the Family Court ought to have considered the case of applicant for maintenance at Rs. 12,000/- per month, because near about Rs. 36,000/- per month is earning. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in granting 1/3rd of salary to the applicant as maintenance, therefore, order of Family Court in granting Rs. 5,000/- per month maintenance is liable to be enhanced by Rs. 12,000/- per month as claimed by the applicant. The order of trial court is further wrong, because it has overlooked that a wife is entitled to get maintenance as per living standard of husband who has getting Rs. 36,000/- per month, in this case therefore she is legally entitled for Rs. 12,000/- maintenance as claimed by her before Family Court. Therefore, the order of Family Court be modified and the award of Rs. 5000/- per month maintenance be enhanced by Rs. 12,000/- per month maintenance. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits the income of Rs. 35,780/- per month 1/3rd should have been granted as maintenance by fixing the same at Rs. 12000/- per month as claimed by her. The Family 3 Court has further failed to see that the applicant is also entitled to spent her life looking to the status of the respondent, therefore, having held income of respondent at Rs. 35,780/- in para 6, the award of maintenance ought to have been passed at Rs. 12,000/- as claimed by her instead of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The order of Family Court for grant of maintenance at Rs. 5000/- is too meager and liable to be enhanced to Rs. 12000/- per month. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 923/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg, partly allowed the application for enhancement of maintenance filed by the applicant, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and 4 is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar