1 2025:CGHC:27757 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1277 of 2018 Namdas Gilhare S/o Rajaram Gilhare Aged About 40 Years Occupation Senior Clerk/government Servant At Sub Divisional Office, Rural Engineering Department, Rajim District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh R/o Village Kusmund (Samoda), Post Office, Police Station And Tahsil Arang District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Non Applicant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Triveni Bai Gilhare W/o Shri Namdas Gilhare Aged About 35 Years Caste Satnami, Permanent R/o Village Kusmund (Samoda), Post Office, Police Station And Tahsil Arang District Raipur Chhattisgarh Present R/o Sanjay Nagar, Nayapara, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Shweta Gilhare D/o Shri Namdas Gilhare Aged About 14 Years Occupation Studying At Class-10 Th In As A Private Student , (Non Applicant /respondent No. 2, Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Triveni Bai Gilhare, W/o Shri Mandas Gilharenon Applicant /respondent No. 1) Present R/o Sanjay Nagar, Nayapara, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Vipin Gilhare S/o Shri Namdas Gilhare Aged About 10 Years Occupation Studying At Class-6 Th In Shyam Vidya Mandir Mahasamund As A Private Student , (Non Applicant /respondent No. 2, Minor On Behalf KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Triveni Bai Gilhare, W/o Shri Mandas Gilharenon Applicant /respondent No. 1) Present R/o Sanjay Nagar, Nayapara, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Non-applicants : None present Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and the impugned order dated 27/03/2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 68/2017 may kindly be quashed and further may kindly be pleased to discharge the applicant from enhanced maintenance amount which is awarded against him in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble court be further pleased to pass any other order or relief in favour of the present applicant as it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of Justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the the applicant is the husband of non-applicant No.1 and the non-applicant No.1 was married with 3 applicant and out of their wedlock, the non-applicant No.2 and 3 namely Shewta and Vipin were born. As per allegation made by the non-applicant No.1 in her application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. that the applicant after few months of marriage was subjected to cruelty and harassed the non-applicants. Thereafter, they reside separately and filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court. 4. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 16.08.2013, whereby it has partly allowed the application and the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicants. Being aggrieved by the same, the non-applicants have preferred an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for enhancement of maintenance amount and after appreciating the same, the learned Family Court concerned has modified in the judgment dated 16.08.2013 passed by the learned Family Court and enhanced Rs. ₹5,000/- to ₹10,000/- (Total 15,000/-) per month (directed the applicant to pay Rs. 10,000/- to non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- to non-applicant No.2 per month towards maintenance). The said maintenance amount shall be deposited every month either in the bank account of applicant No. 1 or paid through money order. Being aggrieved by the same, hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- to non-applicant No. 1 & Rs. 5,000/- to non- 4 applicant no. 2) to the non-applicants which is not justified and reasonable at present circumstances for livelihood. The impugned order of the Family Court based upon wrongly presumption and inferences which is bad in law at present situation of the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non- applicants are having agriculture land by getting the compromise with the applicant and the Non-applicant No. 1 is handsome earning from the agriculture land due to which she is able to maintain herself by this earning as well as the children, therefore, the non-applicants did not deserve to be got the enhanced maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the applicant because the non-applicants are able to maintain themselves. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to see that at present the salary of the applicant has not been increased and nothing is placed by the Non-applicants which show that the earning of the applicant has been increased because the applicant is working as a Senior Clerk/Government Servant at Sub Divisional Office, Rural Engineering Department, Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) and his salary of Rs. 20,000/- from his job and further the applicant maintain himself and his parents who are dependent upon the applicant. The learned Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount towards the non-applicants of Rs. 15,000/- which is not justified and reasonable at present situation and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court failed to see that on 16/08/2013, the learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the non- applicants and this maintenance amount has awarded by the 5 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 non- applicants have filed the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the awarded maintenance which has been passed by the learned Family Court on 16/08/2013. Further it is submitted that the applicant is ready to give the total amount as a maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the non-applicants which is settled in the counseling and compromised. The learned Family Court has failed to consider and appreciate this important aspect of the case. The learned Family Court failed to consider the correct factual position of the case, while there are sufficient evidence, statements and documents on record to believe the facts that applicant is not capable to give the enhancement of the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the non-applicants. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the applicant in its right proper and legal perspective. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order dated 27/03/2018 (Annexure A-1) is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and documents available in record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 16.08.2013 ex-parte, whereby it has partly allowed the application and the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6 5000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicants. Being aggrieved by the same, the non-applicants have preferred an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for enhancement of maintenance amount and after appreciating the same, the learned Family Court concerned has modified in the judgment dated 16.08.2013 passed by the learned Family Court and enhanced Rs. ₹5,000/- to ₹10,000/- (Total 15,000/-) per month (directed the applicant to pay Rs. 10,000/- to non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- to non-applicant No.2 per month towards maintenance) and further directed that the said maintenance amount shall be deposited every month either in the bank account of applicant No. 1 or paid through money order. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.15000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and 2, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal