1 2025:CGHC:28174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1140 of 2019 Smt. Babita Ogre W/o Anand Swaroop Ogre Aged About 45 Years R/o. Flat No. 09, Gitanjali Nagar, Ameri Road, Bilaspur, Police Station - Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Anand Swaroop Ogre S/o Late Narayan Prasad Ogre Occupation - Assistant Grade 3, (Now Promoted As A Assistant Grade 2), And Posted At Office Of Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Madva, Now Posted At Govt. High School, Gatva, Block Baloda, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh, R/o. Village And Post - Levai, Tahsil - Baloda, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press the present criminal revision when the matter is called for hearing. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.28 15:54:26 +0530 2 3. 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 modify the order dated 26.04.2019, passed by the Court of Judge, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) in MJC No. 491/2017, titled as Smt. Babita Ogre Vs. Anand Swaroop Ogre, and enhanced the maintenance amount, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that vide order dated 21.09.2014, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicant while considering her application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. However, the application filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that she is in ill health, suffering from various diseases, and incurring substantial medical expenses. Considering the present market conditions, the maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- is inadequate and, therefore, it is liable to be enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per month. The learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and enhanced the maintenance amount by only Rs. 1,500/- vide its order dated 26.04.2019. 5. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant revision before this Hon’ble High Court seeking further enhancement of the maintenance amount. 3 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), is partly illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law as well as the facts available on record. It is necessary to mention here that the respondent is working on the post of Assistant Grade II and was drawing a salary of Rs. 34,125/- in the year 2018. Therefore, considering the salary of the respondent, the maintenance amount should be enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per month in place of the meagre enhancement of Rs. 1,500/-. He also submits that considering the facts and material available on record, as well as the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the maintenance amount should be enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per month in place of Rs. 1,500/-. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has enhanced maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the applicant, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 9. 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 4 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek