1 2025:CGHC:36852 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1166 of 2023 Thekleshwar @ Thekeshwar @ Mohit Janghel S/o Yogeshwar @ Jageshwar Janghel Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village Sitadabri, P.O. Bundeli, P.S. Chuikhadan, Tehsil Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Basanti Bai W/o Thekleshwar @ Thekeshwar Janghel Aged About 32 Years Present Address Of Village Mohtara, P.S. Saja, Tehsil Saja, District Balod (C.G.) 2 - Yugal Janghel S/o Thekleshwar @ Thekeshwar Janghel Aged About 7 Years Minor Represented By Mother Basanti Bai, W/o Thekleshwar @ Thekeshwar Janghel, Present Address Of Village Mohtara, P.S. Saja, Tehsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 176/2023, whereby the learned RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Family Court, allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent no. 1 herein are husband and wife, they got married on 26.04.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals and the respondent no. 2 born out of their wedlock. The respondents has filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court Bemetara, the said maintenance application was registered as Case No. 103/2017 in which the applicant has opposed the maintenance application however the learned Family Court has passed the order dated 01.12.2018 and thereby, provided maintenance of Rs. 2500/- to Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1000/- to Respondent No. 2 total maintenance of Rs. 3500/- was awarded by the Family Court. The said order dated 01.12.2018 has been challenged by the applicant by way of Criminal Revision No. 118/2019 before this Court in which the notices have been issued to the respondents. The said criminal revision is pending before this Court for consideration till date. During the pendency of the said Criminal Revision before this Court the respondents have moved an application under Section 127 of the CrPC before the learned Judge of Family Court, Bemetara and made averment therein that due to rise in price of day to day life the Respondents have sought the enhancement and modification of earlier maintenance order to the tune of Rs. 15000/- per month for both the Respondents. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were 3 examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for enhancement of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 has left the house of the applicant and living separately from the applicant without any sufficient cause. Thus, she is not entitled for the maintenance as per the provision contained in Section 125(4) of the CrPC. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 176/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar