1 2025:CGHC:1681 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1148 of 2024 1 - Smt. Prabhavati Jaiswal W/o Rambilas Jaiswal Aged About 51 Years R/o Malhotra Street, Near Gudri Market Ambikapur, District Sarguja, C.G. --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - Rambilas Jaiswal S/o Late Kanti Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 55 Years Police Station Patna Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, C.G. --- Respondent(s) CRR No. 40 of 2025 1 - Rambilas Jaiswal S/o Late Kanti Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 61 Years Occupation Service- Teacher Govt Primary School, Pasla, P.S.- Patna, Tehsil- Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) –--Applicant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Prabhavati Jaiswal W/o Rambilas Jaiswal Aged About 53 Years R/o Malhotra Gali Near Gudri Bazaar, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ----Respondent For Rambilas Jaiswal/husband : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Smt. Prabhavati Jaiswal/wife : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 10/01/2025 1. Since subject matter in the both the revision petitions being common, this Court proceeds to decide the matter by this common order. 2. This both revision petitions are preferred against the order dated 2 07.08.2024 passed in Mscl. Criminal Appeal No.219/2022 by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) whereby an application under Section 127 of CrPC filed by the Smt. Prabhavati Jaiswal has been allowed. 3. Brief facts of the present case is that earlier Smt. Prabhavati Jaiswal filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance, the learned family Court vide order dated 25.06.2004 has allowed the application and granted maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 1000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 500 per month for the minor son. Further an application was also filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount and the maintenance towards the wife was enhanced to Rs. 250/- and towards son is enhanced to Rs. 358/- vide order dated 28.07.2009. Further, the maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 3500/- for the wife and Rs. 3000 to son vide order dated 11.12.2018. Again, she had filed an application seeking enhancement of the quantum of maintenance under Section 127 of CrPC before the learned family Court on various grounds of dearness and medication etc and the prayer for enhancing the quantum of maintenance was that it should be enhanced from 3,500/- upto 30,000/- per month. Vide order dated 07.08.2024, the family Court deciding the application on merits enhanced the quantum of maintenance from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 5000/- per month to Smt. Prabhavati Jaiswal. Hence the present revision petitions. 4. Learned counsel for Rambilas Jaiswal/husband submits that he has never extended consent for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance but his consent was to the extent that if the respondent 3 will not prefer any appeal or revision against the order of maintenance then only the amount of 5000/- instead of 3,500/- may be enhanced as full and final amount, but immediately after the impugned order was passed, she preferred the revision seeking enhancement of maintenance. It is trite and settled proposition of law that no appeal or revision is maintainable against the consent order; meaning thereby the consent order cannot be subjected to challenge except on the ground of fraud but in the instant matter the respondent has played both way, so she is not entitled for any kind of relief, even her order dated 07.08.2024 for enhancement to tune of Rs. 5,000/- may be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for Smt. Prabhavati Jaiswal/wife submits that the family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is a public servant and is earning Rs. 94,105 per month and learned family Court ought to have granted one third of the salary towards maintenance amount. The applicant/wife has to maintain herself and her daughter and as the expenses towards the education of applicant’s daughter is likely to increase. Therefore, he prays for enhancement of the same. 6. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 is set aside in both the revision petitions and the same is remitted back to the concerned Family Court for deciding it afresh on its own merits after giving due opportunity of defense to either party. 8. It is directed that both the parties shall remain present before the 4 concerned family Court on 06.02.2025 along with salary slip and all the relevant documents which they wish to produce. 9. OfÏce is directed to send the records along with a certified copy of this Order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.01.31 10:57:23 +0530