1 2025:CGHC:45867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1270 of 2019 Shivprasad S/o Chotu Kurmi Aged About 40 Years R/o Nava Gaon, Musau, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Kankabai W/o Shivprasad Chandrakar Aged About 35 Years Occupation Nothing, R/o Nava Gaon, Musau, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Govind Dewangan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant 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 02.08.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.11 13:19:32 +0530 2 Kabirdham, District – Kabirdham, (Kawardha) (C.G.) may kindly be set-aside in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent preferred an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the applicant seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. The marriage between the present applicant and the respondent was an exchange marriage (Guravat Shadi), solemnized on that basis. 4. Upon service of notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District Kawardha (C.G.). 5. Learned Family Court passed the order on the assumption that the present applicant and the respondent had entered into a compromise. On that basis, the maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,200/- in favour of the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Family Court, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh, is bad in law, illegal, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of law, and therefore deserves to be set aside. He also submits that learned Family Court has erred both in law and on facts while passing the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to explain the circumstances of the case to the applicant and proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of an alleged compromise. He also submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from material irregularity, is contrary to the facts on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside. He further submits that the means of maintenance were not properly adjudicated by the learned Family Court, and the respondent has been granted relief in a 3 manner contrary to the true intent and spirit of the provision for maintenance. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek