1 2025:CGHC:28638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1200 of 2019 Ramesh Bai @ Bipati Bai W/o Ramkishun Chandrakar, Aged About 43 Years Occupation - Nothing, R/o Naruali, Present Address - Nava Gaon, Musau, Police Station - Kunda, Tahsil - Pandariya And District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Ramkishun S/o Shri Sidhram Chandrakar, Aged About 49 Years R/o Narauli, Police Station - Kunda, Tahsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.28 16:17:57 +0530 2 that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) (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 seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. It is further submitted that the applicant had previously filed an application under Section 127 for enhancement of the maintenance amount in Case No. 524/15, wherein the amount was increased from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 1,000/- by order dated 23.02.2016. After a period of three years, the applicant again filed the present application on the ground that she is a housewife, has no source of income, is often unwell, and considering the prevailing rate of inflation, it is not possible for her to live a life of dignity with the current maintenance amount. 4. Upon being served notice by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.), the respondent failed to appear before the learned Family Court, and consequently, an ex-parte order was passed against him. It is further stated by the applicant that the respondent is a farmer possessing 15 acres of agricultural land, from which he is earning a handsome amount of approximately Rs. 18,00,000 per year. 5. Learned Family Court finally passed an order in the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 12.09.2019, 3 enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- only, which is insufficient for the applicant to live with dignity and to meet her necessary expenses. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 12.09.2019 passed by learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.), is bad in law, illegal, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of law, and therefore deserves to be set aside. 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 submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the rate of inflation has increased substantially, making it impossible for the applicant to live a life of dignity and bear all her necessary expenses with the meager amount granted. The applicant had earlier filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., and after a gap of three years — from 2016 to 2019 — the inflation rate further increased. The respondent deliberately avoided appearing before the learned Family Court, due to which an ex-parte order was passed against him. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from material irregularities and is contrary to the facts available on record, and as such, it is liable to be quashed and set aside. The means and financial capacity of the respondent were not properly adjudicated by the learned Family Court. The respondent is under a statutory obligation to provide maintenance, and the failure to assess his income and responsibilities defeats the very intent and purpose of the maintenance provisions, thereby warranting the quashing of the impugned order. 4 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. 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 allowed the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has enhanced maintenance from Rs. 1000/- to 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. 10. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek