1 2025:CGHC:32961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1312 of 2019 Kuber Singh Verma S/o Shri Chagan Lal Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Tor, Police Station - Vidhan Sabha, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Babita Verma W/o Kuber Singh Verma Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Village Boriyakala, P.S. Mujgahan, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Fuleswari Verma D/o Kuber Singh Verma Aged About 15 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Babita Verma. Resident Of Village Boriyakala, P.S. Mujgahan, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Shruti Verma D/o Kuber Singh Verma Aged About 11 Years Through Nature Guardian Mother Smt. Babita Verma . Resident Of Village Boriyakala, P.S. Mujgahan, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No. 154/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, 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. 4,000/- per month to the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents had filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court, Raipur, which was registered as Case No. 485/2005 in which the learned Family Court by order dated 25.09.2006 has granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,500/- per month. The respondents have filed an application under Section 127 of CrPC before the learned Family Court seeking alteration in maintenance from the applicant who is the husband of the respondent. After the notice in the said matter was served upon the applicant, the applicant filed the reply to the application filed under Section 127 of CrPC. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application of the respondent and directed the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material available on record only on the basis of arbitrary manner, thus, the impugned order is completely illegal. 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 levied with loads of duty, his old aged father having heart disease while his mother is suffering from Tuberculosis disease and with high blood 3 pressure, this gives him a lot of duty and medical expense, on the other hand there is no woman to take care of his mother in her old age. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. 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 23.07.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No. 154/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, 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. 4,000/- per month to the respondents, 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 9. 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