1 2025:CGHC:47498 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 913 of 2021 1. Malti Sahu W/o Goverdhan Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 2. Kumari Sonam Sahu D/o Goverdhan Sahu Aged About 17 Years, R/o Village Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3. Kumari Priyanka, Goverdhan Sahu Aged About 15 Years, R/o Village Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 Through Mother Malti Sahu W/o GoverdhanSahu, Aged About 36 Years) ... Applicants versus Goverdhan Sahu S/o Lakheshram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Kosmsara, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Supriya Upasane, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Ms. Supriya Upasane, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.17 12:34:33 +0530 2 K.P. Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) may kindly be set- aside, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant preferred an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the respondent for enhancement of the maintenance amount granted as per the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Learned JMFC, Kasdol, whereby the learned Court was pleased to award a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as maintenance to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3. 4. Subsequently, after the lapse of five years, the Applicants filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. However, the Learned Family Court, Baloda- Bazar, after recording evidence and perusing the documents filed by the Applicants, rejected the request of enhancement in respect of Applicant No. 1 and partly allowed the application in respect of Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 and directed to pay Rs. 5000/- each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Baloda-Bazar, District Baloda-Bazar, is bad in law, illegal, perverse, contrary to law, and 3 deserves to be set aside. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the earlier order of maintenance was passed more than five years ago, and considering the present circumstances and prevailing inflation, the learned Family Court has erred both in law and on facts while passing the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside. He further submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that in the year 2018 the amount of maintenance was enhanced by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda-Bazar, in Criminal Revision No. 26/2018 vide order dated 29.08.2018. He further submits that learned Family Court has failed to consider that due to inflation, the expenses of applicant No. 1 have substantially increased, and she is residing in a rented house. It is further submitted that the respondent owns agricultural land and is earning income therefrom. He also submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that although the parents of the respondent are residing with him, his father is receiving pension for their livelihood, whereas applicant No. 1 has no such independent source of income. The impugned order passed by the Learned Family Court suffers from material irregularity, is contrary to the facts available on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that the issue of enhancement of maintenance has not been properly adjudicated by the Learned Family Court, and the respondent is under a legal obligation to maintain the applicants, in accordance with the intention and spirit of the provisions relating to maintenance. The impugned order thus deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. 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 CrPC filed by the applicants. The Court has enhanced the maintenance for applicant Nos. 2 and 3 from Rs. 3,000/- per month each to Rs. 5,000/- per month each, while rejecting the application for enhancement of maintenance amount in respect of applicant No. 1, 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 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. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek