1 2025:CGHC:5010 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2025 of 2018 Smt. Anganmati W/o Hariram Sahu Aged About 33 Years Occupation- Nothing R/o Village Noonpani, Present R/o Village Khajri, Police Station And Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Hariram Sahu S/o Sadhram Sahu Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Agriculture And Business R/o Village Noonpani, Police Station Kosir Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28 /01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and 2 set aside /quashed the order dated 29.08.2018 passed by Learned Additional Session Judge Sarangarh, District Raigarh C.G., in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent, was deserted by her husband without sufÏcient reason. As a result, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.) in Sarangarh, Raigarh District. The application was allowed by the J.M.F.C. on January 23, 1995, in Criminal Case No. 76/1992. Later, the petitioner filed another application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. to increase the maintenance amount, which was allowed on 11.07.2006, and the maintenance amount was increased to Rs. 250/- per month. However, the petitioner claimed that the amount granted by the J.M.F.C. was not sufÏcient for her survival, and she faced difÏculties in maintaining her life. Therefore, she filed another application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. on 05.11.2014, to increase the maintenance amount. The J.M.F.C. in Sarangarh issued a notice, and the respondent filed a reply. The J.M.F.C. then passed an order on 05.02.2018, increasing the maintenance amount from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 700/- per month in Misc. Criminal Case No. 5/2014. 4. The petitioner argued that the J.M.F.C. did not consider the fact that due to price inflation, the maintenance amount sought by the applicant was sufÏcient, but still granted Rs. 700/- as maintenance without considering the price inflation. The petitioner then preferred 3 a revision before the Additional Session Judge in Sarangarh, challenging the order dated 05.02.2018, passed by the J.M.F.C. The Additional Session Judge dismissed the revision without considering the evidence presented by the petitioner, particularly regarding price inflation and the husband's income. The petitioner had contended in the application and the revision memo that the husband earned more than Rs. 20,000/- per month, and therefore, she was entitled for maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional Court have failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that the respondent's cruelty forced her to leave his house. He further submits that the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional Court have failed to consider the fact that the husband earns more than Rs. 20,000/- per month, in addition to his income from agricultural land. The learned trial Court has granted a maintenance amount of Rs. 700/- per month to petitioner, which is insufÏcient for her survival. He also submits that the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional Court have failed to consider the evidence presented by the petitioner regarding the husband's income, which supports her claim for a maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Both the trial Court as well as revisional Court have not considered the fact that, given the current price index, a maintenance amount of Rs. 700/- per month is insufÏcient, and that the petitioner is entitled to a higher amount to meet her basic needs. Therefore, the order dated 29.08.2018 passed by learned 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) is liable to set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that both the learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties have passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with it. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the revisional Court has recorded the finding that looking to the increasing cost of living and the respondent's likely increase in income, as well as the petitioner’s financial situation, the learned trial Court's decision to increase the maintenance amount from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 700/- per month does not appear to be legally flawed. The trial Court decision to provide the applicant with a higher maintenance amount is reasonable and justified, given the circumstances of the case. The applicant has challenged the order on the grounds that the increased maintenance amount of Rs. 700/- per month should be paid from the date of application, not from the date of the order. However, evidence suggests that the respondent has remarried and has a son and daughter from the second marriage, and is also taking care of his son Radheshyam from his previous marriage. This increases his responsibilities, and it cannot be denied that his liabilities have increased compared to before. On the other hand, 5 the applicant has not presented any oral or documentary evidence to show that she faced extreme financial difÏculties from the date of application to the date of the order, which would have led to her being burdened with debt. Considering the financial situation of both parties, as proven by the evidence presented, the decision of learned trial Court to pay the increased maintenance amount from the date of the order is justified, which warrants no interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.29 15:54:33 +0530