1 2025:CGHC:29201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1410 of 2019 1. Smt. Jarina Begum W/o Fajlool Bari Aged About 38 Years By Caste - Muslim, R/o Village - Parsapara, Patna, Police Station - Patna, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Arju Parveen D/o Fajlool Bari, Aged About 18 Years By Caste - Muslim, R/o Village - Parsapara, Patna, Police Station - Patna, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Fajlool Bari S/o Abdul Kadir Aged About 50 Years Caste - Muslim , Occupation - Shopkeeper, R/o Odginaka Manendragarh ( Road Taj Hardware), Baikunthpur, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.02 10:41:20 +0530 2 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 26.06.2019 and restore the maintenance order dated 21.04.2017, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are the applicants are the legally wedded wife and children of the respondent and are presently living separately. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, and vide order dated 21.04.2017, the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 49/2015, directed the respondent to pay Rs. 2500/- per month each to the applicants for their maintenance. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2017, the respondent filed a revision before the Hon’ble Court bearing Criminal Revision No. 477 of 2017, and vide order dated 19.09.2018, the Hon’ble Court was kind enough to dispose of the revision with liberty to the respondent that, if he so desires, he may file an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. raising his grounds regarding applicant No. 1 before the Family Court. After the order of the Hon’ble Court, the respondent filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed for default. However, instead of filing any application for restoration of the said application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., the respondent filed a fresh application under Section 127 of 3 Cr.P.C., stating therein that applicant No. 1 is working as a Mitanin in the Community Health Center, Patna, and her earnings from April 2017 to August 2017 were Rs. 53,752/-, and from September 2017 to March 2018 were Rs. 38,256/-. Apart from this, it was stated that applicant No. 1 is receiving Rs. 350/- per month as deserted pension under a government scheme, and she is also receiving 35 kg of rice under a government scheme. It was further contended by the respondent that his shop was not running properly; therefore, he had closed the shop, and he is receiving Rs. 6000/- per month as rent from a rental house, and hence, the maintenance allowed in favour of applicant No. 1 should be cancelled. 5. After service of notice, the applicants filed their reply, wherein they denied the averments and submitted that although applicant No. 1 is working as a Mitanin, she receives only an encouragement amount (Protsahan Rashi) upon the delivery of a child at the hospital. As per the State Government scheme, she is receiving only 14 kg of rice (7 kg per unit). It was further contended by the applicants that she is living in a rented house along with her child and has no permanent source of income. In contrast, the respondent is running a provision shop and is also receiving rental income from a house. Therefore, it was prayed that the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. be dismissed with exemplary costs. 6. After hearing both parties, vide impugned order dated 26.06.2019, the learned Family Court reduced the maintenance from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 1000/- per month in favour of applicant No. 1. 4 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 26.06.2019 is perverse, illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the material evidence available on record, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has gravely erred in altering the maintenance amount by reducing the same. He submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that, in the present societal scenario, the maintenance amount of Rs. 1000/- per month is not sufficient for a lady to sustain herself. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that applicant No. 1 requires clothing, personal care articles, and other necessities to survive with dignity in society. He also submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that although applicant No. 1 is working as a Mitanin, she receives the encouragement amount (Protsahan Rashi) only upon the delivery of a child at the hospital, and under the State Government scheme, she is receiving only 14 kg of rice (7 kg per unit). The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that applicant No. 1 is living in a rented house along with her child. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that applicant No. 1 does not have any permanent source of income and that the work of a Mitanin is temporary in nature. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is running a provision shop and is also earning income from a rental house, and thus, the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. ought to have been dismissed with exemplary costs. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the evidence adduced by the applicants remained unrebutted. 5 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has reduced the maintenance awarded to the applicant No. 01 from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 1000/-, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek