1 2025:CGHC:38448 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 924 of 2025 Dharmpal Sahu S/o Late Ramjiyawan Sahu, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Namna School Para, Police Station And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Sushila Devi Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Premnagar, Station And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 252/2024 by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District-Surajpur (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant filed an application for grant of maintenance, before the learned Family Court concerned and vide order dated 12.07.2006 in M.J.C. No. 192/2024 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 700/- per month in favour of non- applicant. Thereafter non-applicant filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for enhancement of maintenance amount and vide order dated 05.02.2021 the learned Family Court has enhanced the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2500/- per month in favour of non- applicant. Therafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 146 of B.N.S.S. for setting-aside the order dated 05.02.2021 and enhancement in maintenance amount. 3. The applicant filed reply to the application under Section 146 of B.N.S.S. and submitted that the applicant has given the land bearing khasra No. admeasuring area 2.21 hectares situated at Village- Namna, Tahsil-Premnagar, District-Surajpur to the non- applicant for her maintenance and the non-applicant is doing agricultural work and thereby earning livelihood. The non-applicant is holding Below Poverty Line Ration Card and getting 35 kg. free rice and other food grains in low price as per scheme of Government. The non-applicant is also getting Rs. 1000/- per month under Mahtari Vandan Yojna and Rs. 500/- per month under Social Security Pension and she is also getting Rs. 6000/- per annum under Pradhanmantri Kissan Yojna, thereby the non-applicant is having sufficient source of income, whereas the applicant is not having any permanent source of income. The son of applicant namely Yograj is living with the applicant and he is studying at Bilaspur, therefore the applicant is bearing study expenses of 3 10,000/- per month for his son, therefore there is no need to enhance the maintenance amount and the application under Section 146 of B.N.S.S. filed by the non- applicant be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned order dated 24.04.2025 the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application of the non-applicant whereby enhanced the maintenance amount and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3500/-per month. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has given the land bearing khasra No. 1229 admeasuring area 2.21 hectares Tahsil- situated at Village-Namna, Premnagar, District-Surajpur to the non- applicant for her maintenance and the non-applicant is doing agricultural work and thereby earning livelihood. Further, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is holding Below Poverty Line Ration Card and getting 35 kg. free rice and other food grains in low price as per scheme of Government. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is also getting Rs. 1000/- per month under Mahtari Vandan Yojna and Rs. 500/- per month under Social Security Pension and she is also getting Rs. 6000/- per annum under Pradhanmantri Kissan Yojna, thereby the non- applicant is having sufficient source of income. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the son of applicant namely Yograj is living with the applicant and he is studying at Bilaspur, therefore the applicant is bearing study expenses of 10,000/- per 4 month for his son. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is a healthy lady and she is able to maintain herself and the learned Family Court has allowed maintenance in favour of non-applicant in higher side, which is not sustainable looking to the low income of the applicant. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that initially the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 12.07.2006, whereby it was partly allowed the application and the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 700/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant. Being aggrieved by the same, the non-applicants had preferred an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for enhancement of maintenance amount and after hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court concerned has modified in the judgment dated 12.07.2006 passed by the learned Family Court and enhanced Rs. ₹700/- to ₹2500/-per month. Thereafter she preferred an application under Section 146 of BNSS for enhancement in maintenance amount and vide order dated 24.04.2025, the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount of Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 3500/- per month. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various 5 relevant factors, including the income of the applicant, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.3500/- per month to the non-applicant. I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal