1 2025:CGHC:28194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1189 of 2019 Uttam Prasad Sahu S/o Daduram Sahu Aged About 57 Years Occupation Govenment Sevice (Assistant Mechanic), R/o Village - Sultannnar, P.S. - Baloda, District- Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Saraswati Sahu W/o Uttam Prasad Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Sultannnar, P.S. - Baloda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Village - Podi, Bazar Para, Podi, Tahsil - Bodla, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 may kindly be pleased to set aside the judgment dated 27.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 489/2018, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent, Saraswati Sahu, filed an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded to her. She was married to the applicant, Uttam Prasad Sahu, in the year 1983 as per Hindu customs (Satpadi) at Village Lakhram. After marriage, she lived with her husband and gave birth to a daughter, Sharda. However, after about one and a half years of the child’s birth, the respondent brought another woman of Christian faith into the household and, along with his mother, allegedly subjected the respondent to physical abuse and ultimately forced her to leave the matrimonial home in Raipur. She then returned to her parental home with her daughter. Subsequently, she filed a maintenance petition (Case No. 312/2017) before the Family Court, which was settled through compromise before the National Lok Adalat on 08.07.2018, wherein the applicant agreed to pay ₹6000 per month. Later, due to the death of her father, lack of financial support, deteriorating health, and rising expenses, the respondent sought enhancement of the maintenance to ₹20,000 per month, asserting that the applicant is employed as an Assistant Mechanic in the Government Ayurved Drugs and Pharmacy, Amanaka Chowk, Raipur, earning ₹45,000 3 per month, and also owns five acres of agricultural land. After hearing both parties and recording evidence, the Family Court, by order dated 27.03.2019, enhanced the maintenance amount from ₹6000 to ₹9000 per month. Hence, this revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the revision is being preferred on the ground that the maintenance amount of ₹6000/- per month was earlier granted to the respondent, Saraswati Bai Sahu, through a mutually agreed compromise before the National Lok Adalat on 08.07.2017, and as such, the subsequent application for enhancement is not maintainable. The respondent has failed to establish any substantial change in circumstances justifying the increase. Although she has claimed in Paragraph 4 of her application that her father’s death left her without means of support, she has not provided any evidence to show how her father was maintaining her or how his demise directly affected her financial condition. Moreover, the respondent’s plea regarding a sudden rise in the cost of essential items like cereals and clothing within a year lacks any concrete justification or supporting data. Therefore, the order of the Family Court enhancing the maintenance amount from ₹6000/- to ₹9000/- is arbitrary, beyond the evidence on record, and suffers from legal infirmity, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned 4 Judge, Family Court, Kabirdhan, District- Kabirdham (Kawardha), (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly exercised its judicial discretion and passed a well-reasoned order dated 27.03.2019 by enhancing the maintenance amount from ₹6000 to ₹9000 per month in favour of the respondent, Saraswati Sahu. Considering the respondent’s deteriorating health, lack of financial support after the death of her father, and the increasing cost of living, the Court justly concluded that the earlier maintenance amount had become inadequate for her sustenance. The Court also took into account the financial capacity of the applicant, Uttam Prasad Sahu, who is employed as an Assistant Mechanic in a government department and earns a monthly salary of ₹45,000, in addition to owning agricultural land. After evaluating the evidence and hearing both parties, the Family Court’s decision to moderately enhance the maintenance to ₹9000 reflects a fair balance between the needs of the respondent and the paying capacity of the applicant, and thus, the impugned order is just, equitable, and in accordance with law. 8. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan