1 2025:CGHC:41235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 881 of 2025 Annu @ Hira Verma W/o Ramanuj Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Kalika Nagar Tifra PS Sirgitti Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus Ramanuj Verma S/o Kishun Lal Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sambalpur Tahsil Nawagarh Distt. Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel, for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sunil Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be passed to allow this revision petition and further be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount passed by learned Family Court Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 28/2019, parties between “Annu @ Hira Verma Vs. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.22 18:07:27 +0530 2 Ramanuj Verma” from the date of application filed by the petitioner before the Family Court in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant moved an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the maintenance amount (changes in allowances) before the learned Family Court, requesting that the respondent be directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the applicant. However, the respondent ignored the said request. As per the application of the application, the learned Family Court issued notice to the respondent. After service of notice, the responden filed his reply to the enhancement application. In his reply, the respondent admitted that in Mrs. Annu alias Heera Verma vs. Ramanuj, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 693/2014, by order dated 20.05.2015 under Section 125 CrPC, an order was passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondent, directing payment of maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant. Denying the remaining facts, he stated that he is working as a teacher and that there has been no increase in his income. He further submitted that his parents are old and weak, and he is bearing the expenses for their medicines, care, and upkeep. The respondent claimed to be the only earning member of the family. He further alleged that the applicant is taking PSC coaching and also gives tuition to children, from which she earns income and leads a comfortable life. He also stated that an order for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was passed in his favour and against the applicant, but the applicant is not complying with the same. Therefore, he prayed that the application for enhancement be dismissed. 3 4. Despite the above facts, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 20.02.2024, partly allowed the application under Section 127 CrPC and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicant in place of Rs. 3,000/- per month, thereby enhancing the maintenance amount by only Rs. 1,000/-. A copy of the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 is already annexed herewith as Annexure P/1. Hence, this revision petition is being filed for further enhancement of the maintenance amount. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, erroneous, illegal, and contrary to the evidence available on record. Therefore, the order passed by the Family Court deserves to be modified, and the maintenance amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month ought to be granted to the applicant. He also submits that learned Family Court ignored the provisions under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is most respectfully submitted that the applicant is living separately with sufficient and valid reasons. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent has not filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights for living together before the Family Court. This clearly proves that the respondent is not interested in enjoying a happy married life with the applicant. He also submits that learned Family Court also ignored the admission made by the respondent during cross- examination that he is employed and earning Rs. 33,700/- per month. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modified and the maintenance amount enhanced. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that it is duly proved on record that the applicant is residing separately with sufficient reasons. The maintenance amount granted by the Family Court is insufficient and requires enhancement. He further 4 submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that the reply filed by the respondent does not properly deny the averments of the applicant’s application. He submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent did not produce his latest salary slip. The learned Family Court relied upon the salary details of the year 2019, when the respondent was earning ₹36,545/- per month, whereas presently his income is higher. The salary slip of the year 2019 is annexed herewith as Annexure A/2. Therefore, the maintenance amount ought to be modified in view of the present income. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Anju Garg and Another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, held in paragraphs 9 & 10 that Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial legislation aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution by providing a speedy remedy to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. The Court emphasized that the dominant purpose is to provide social justice and financial support to the dependent wife, child, and parents. Thus, in light of the settled legal position, the applicant is entitled to enhancement of the maintenance amount granted by the Family Court. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, contending that the applicant is also an earning person who gives tuition to children, from which she earns an income and leads a comfortable life. He further submits that the respondent has always been willing to keep the applicant, but in-spite of she is living separately from the respondent without sufficient cause. 8. It is further submitted that, from a perusal of the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in FAM No. 194 of 2017, it is evident that the 5 respondent is willing to keep his wife. However, learned counsel for the applicant submits that, due to the respondent’s behaviour, the applicant is unable to reside with him. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- to the applicant, observing the income, social and economic status of both parties and the current price index, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. 11. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice Abhishek