1 2025:CGHC:34087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 61 of 2022 Rampal Diwan S/o Shri Jailal Aged About 58 Years R/o Sarai Dafai, Jhagrakhand, P.S. Jhagrakhand, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Krishna Diwan W/o Shri Rampal Diwan Aged About 52 Years R/o Sarai Dafai, Jharkhand, District- Koriya (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 145/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent had filed an application under section 127 of CrPC before the learned Family Court mentioning in it that the applicant is her husband and in the year 2012, the maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 5000/- and subsequently RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 looking to the increment of the essential commodities and she resides at rented house and suffering from the disease she claim the amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month and the respondent duly examined A.W. 2 in respect of her averments. The applicant herein stated before the learned family court is that he has been retired from the SECL in the month of March, 2020 and he is not in a position to pay the amount of the maintenance to the applicant. After scrutinizing the evidence and material available on record which was brought by the respective party of the case the maintenance amount has been enhanced to the tune of Rs. 8000/- per month from the month of March, 2021. Hence, this revision. 4. 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 applicant is retired employee and he is receiving the pension of Rs. 21,241/-, so the amount which was enhanced by the learned Family Court is liable to be reduced suitably. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 3 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar