1 2025:CGHC:3647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 694 of 2024 Smt. Sangita Singh W/o Chandan Singh, Aged About 33 Years R/o Gulab Nagar, Gudiyari, Raipur C.G. --- Applicant(s) versus Chandan Singh S/o Jitendra Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Bhawani Nagar, Behind Of Vivekanand Vidyapith Kota, Raipur C.G. --- Non-applicant(s) CRR No. 1140 of 2024 Chandan Singh S/o Jitendra Singh Aged About 36 Years Teacher Colony Behind The Vidhyapeet Kota Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus Smt. Sangeeta Singh W/o Chandan Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Behind The Chirkuti Mandir Gulabnagar, Ambedkar Nagar Gudiyari, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant :Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Adv. in CRR No.694/2024. For Non-applicant :Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Adv. in CRR No. 694/2024. And For Applicant :Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Adv. in CRR No.1140/2024. For Non-applicants:Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Adv. in CRR No.1140/2024. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 28/07/2025 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife namely Smt. Sangita Singh. The learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, vide order dated 17.12.2008, has disposed of the matter on the ground that there was an amicable settlement between the parties as the husband agreed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the wife as maintenance. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 25000/- per month and further the same was partly allowed and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 2000/- to Rs.5000/- per month vide order dated 18.03.2024 which is sought to be challenged herein by both the husband as well as the wife in these revisions petition. The wife, Smt. Sangita Singh, filed Criminal Revision No. 694/2024, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Chandan Singh, filed Criminal Revision No. 1140/2024, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced. 3. Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for wife Smt. Sangita Singh, submit that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and enhanced maintenance amount Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 5000/- in favour of wife, ignoring the fact that the husband’s earns Rs. 70,000/- and further 3 5,00,000/- received from incentive. He further submits that she has no source of income and she has fully dependent upon her old aged father and further she has not performed second marriage. He further submits that the learned Family Court has not seen the act of her husband and in- laws, they had threatened the wife for demand of dowry. Therefore, the wife is residing separately in her parental house she is facing financial problem, therefore, the enhancement amount of maintenance is very meager as present status of the non-applicant. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper and contrary to the fact and as such, amount of maintenance i.e. total Rs.5000/- is shockingly low looking to the cost of living, standard of living, cost of price index, therefore, same be enhanced suitably. 4. Per contra, Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for husband Chandan Singh, submit that the husband has denied all the allegation levelled by the wife against him and has submitted that the learned Family Court failed to consider the material available on record with respect to the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.08.2019 in FAM No. 06/2016 where in decree of divorced granted in favour of husband. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the order dated 17.12.2008 was passed in compromised, it was not the case of wife that said compromised order was passed in playing fraud. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to considered that the wife was lodged a false report against the husband and family member, they were in jail, but trial Court acquitted the husband and other members. After decree of divorce, the husband solemnized marriage and wife has been carrying pregnancy, therefore, enhancement of 4 maintenance of order is not just and proper. He further submits that the enhanced maintenance amount deserves to be reduced suitably and amount of maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month payable to wife is not reasonable and fair, therefore, his revision deserves to be allowed and revision filed by wife deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 17.12.2008, has disposed of the matter on the ground that there was an amicable settlement between the parties as the husband agreed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the wife as maintenance. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 25000/- per month and further the same was partly allowed and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 2000/- to Rs.5000/- per month vide order dated 18.03.2024 which is sought to be challenged herein by both the husband as well as the wife in these revisions petition. The wife, Smt. Sangita Singh, filed Criminal Revision No. 694/2024, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Chandan Singh, filed Criminal Revision No. 1140/2024, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, 5 the same deserves to be reduced. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the husband, 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 husband and the genuine needs of the wife. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding recorded by learned Family Court while enhanced the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original records of revisions to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal