1 2025:CGHC:3087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 85 of 2025 1 - Smt. Lalita Sahu W/o Pawan Sahu Aged About 35 Years, 2 - Ku. Pratima Sahu D/o Pawan Sahu Aged About 15 Years (Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lalita Bai Sahu), 3 - Ku. Vidya Sahu D/o Pawan Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lalita Bai Sahu, All are R/o Village- Semo, Police Station- Pipariya, District- Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicants versus Pawan Sahu S/o Deepchand Sahu Aged About 37 Years Occupation- Sugarcane Factory Director, Agriculturist And Tractor Driver, R/o Village- Semo, Police Station- Pipariya, District- Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/01/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the 2 order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.157/2023, whereby the Family Court has granted interim maintenance total amount of Rs.5,500/- per month (Rs.2,100/- for applicant No.1 and Rs.1,700-1,700/- for applicants No.2 & 3), hence this revision is being filed on the following facts. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicants had preferred an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 19.12.2023 against the non-applicant/respondent- Pawan Sahu for enhancement in maintenance allowance. The application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC was preferred by the applicants against respondent which was decided on the basis of compromise. Thereafter in the year, 2019, an application for alteration in the maintenance allowance was preferred before the learned Family Court which was decided on the basis of compromise on 31.07.2019, whereby the applicant No.1 was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1600/- and applicants No.2 & 3 were awarded maintenance allowance a sum of Rs. 1200-1200/- to each, thus, total maintenance awarded to the applicants was Rs.4,000/- in Misc. Cri. Case No. 166/2019. After year 2019, prices were increased in the daily need articles and the earlier awarded amount Rs.4,000/- is so less that it is not sufficient for maintaining the applicants for a month, due to which they are facing great hardship of livelihood and it was prayed before the learned Court 3 that an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month may be enhanced up to Rs. 35,000/- per month. 3. The non-applicant having being served notice by the learned Family Court, appeared and filed reply before the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) and denied the contention of application under Section 127 of CrPC, filed by the applicant. 4. The statement under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C. has been filed by the present applicants and non- applicant and thereafter the learned Court below i.e. learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) decided the issue that whether the applicants are entitled to get enhancement in the earlier awarded maintenance allowance in affirmative and it was ordered that the earlier maintenance allowance is enhanced by an amount of Rs. 500-500/- to each and thus the earlier of Rs.1,600/- became Rs. 2,100/- to the applicant No.1 whereas amount of applicant No.2 & 3 became Rs. 1700-1700/- and the non- applicant was directed to pay total sum of Rs. 5,500/- to the applicants as maintenance allowance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the learned Court below erred in accepting the application under Section 127 of CrPC filed by the applicants and partly allowed the same whereas Rs. 1,600/- was enhanced an Rs. 2,100/- whereas Rs. 1200-1200/- where enhanced as Rs. 1700-1700/- which is much less in comparison to the amount granted in the year of 2019. He further contended that the 4 learned Court below erred in appreciating the fact as the present applicants could not disclosed the earning of the non-applicant whereas the applicants have clearly mentioned in their application that there is enhancement in the income of the non- applicant and he has no liability and as per the scheme of the State Government also there is enhancement in the agricultural crops of the state agriculturists but the learned Trial Court failed to consider the same, therefore, the amount of maintenance may be altered and enhanced up to Rs. 35,000/- per month in favour of the applicants. It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 passed before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) may kindly be quashed/set- aside and the maintenance allowance may kindly be enhanced up to Rs.35,000/- per month in favour of the present applicants, in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicants and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.5,500/- per month (Rs.2,100/- for applicant No.1 and Rs.1,700-1,700/- for applicants No.2 & 3). 5 8. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned Family Court has discussed the factors while arriving at a finding is just and proper. From perusal of the same, it is evident that the applicant no.1 and respondent were married according to their customs. At present, the applicants have been living separately from the respondent after they were deserted and hence, the learned Family Court has rightly determined the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,500/- per month to the applicants, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR