1 2025:CGHC:25103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1171 of 2017 Mohammad Jahiruddin S/o Late Samaydin Aged About 55 Years Permanent R/o Village Bagdai, Post Office Police Station And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Khairun B. W/o Mohamad Jahiruddin Aged About 49 Years R/o Shahid Hamid Nagar, Nehru Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. None for the respondent. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.62/2016, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and enhanced the maintenance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application for maintenance before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred as family court) which has been decided on 12/03/2013 whereby maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded to the respondent against the applicant. This maintenance amount has awarded by the learned Family Court on the basis of compromise has been taken place between the parties on the ground of there is no further litigation will be filed against each other inspite of this the respondent has filed the application u/s 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount which was registered as M.J.C. Case No. 62/2016 and by order dated 17/08/2017, the maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 4500/- to the respondent. Hence, the criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that respondent is working as a Salesman of Bengal and the Business of Goat and she is drawing the sufficient amount from her work, she is able to maintain herself by this earning due to which, there is no need of enhancement in maintenance. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to see that at present the salary of the 3 respondent has been increased and nothing is placed by the respondent which show that the earning of the applicant has been increased, the applicant is working as Chowkidar in the Government Department which is lowest post of the department and further, the applicant has performed second marriage after the divorce from the respondent and he himself carrying responsibility of the family, despite the learned Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount, which is not justified, hence is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has 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 criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and enhanced the maintenance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month observing that the respondent is a government servant, he himself stated that he works as a Chowkidar in the Irrigation Department with a monthly salary of Rs. 16,338. He claimed to spend Rs. 10,000 on his second wife's expenses. Despite having a regular income source and being a 4 government servant with expected annual salary increments, he has taken on additional responsibilities. The respondent disclosed that his second wife resides in a government-allotted accommodation, while he stays in a rented house, paying Rs. 3,000 in rent. Notably, he has been allotted two government quarters, resulting in a deduction of Rs. 450 from his salary. Given the change in the respondent's financial situation due to his salary increase, the applicant is entitled for a higher maintenance amount. After considering the circumstances, the Family Court determines that a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 4,500 is reasonable and recoverable. 9. Considering the submissions 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil