1 2025:CGHC:39263 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1293 of 2023 Smt. Hemlata Rajput W/o Baldev Singh Rajput Aged About 29 Years R/o Alka Venue Makaan No. C-34 Uslapur Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Baldev Singh Rajput S/o Ramswaroop Rajput Aged About 24 Years Tehsil Chowk Lormi, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the impugned by the judgment dated 19.07.2023, passed by Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 263/2019, may kindly be directed to get enhanced to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- per month and with due respect, respondent might also be directed to pay the many last due amounts since order dated 19.7.2023 ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.07 19:42:05 +0530 2 and in the interest of the justice to the applicant, it's a very humble and kind request to the hon'ble High court to direct the respondent that the amount of all the maintenance charges must be deducted directly from the respondent's account.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant had filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court for enhancement of the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- per month. The marriage between the applicant No.1 and the respondent took place on 17th April, 2008, according to the rituals and customs of the society, and one child was born out of the said wedlock. It has been alleged that after the marriage, the respondent and his family members started subjecting the applicant to cruelty in a very inhumane manner. Since the year 2010, the applicant, for the sake of her child, has been residing separately from her husband. No divorce proceedings have been initiated so far. In the year 2010, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.), which was decided on 14.12.2010, granting her a maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The said amount was later enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- per month by order dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure-1). However, since the date of the last order, the respondent has not paid a single installment nor made any transaction towards the applicant. The applicant has further averred that her health condition has been deteriorating for a long time and she has been suffering from several medical issues. She has also undergone surgery in the past. It is pertinent to mention that, particularly in the year 2023, her medical expenses increased substantially as she was diagnosed with severe gynecological and other life-threatening health conditions. The applicant 3 is unemployed and unable to maintain herself and her child. Some of her medical prescriptions, test reports, and other treatment-related documents are annexed herewith as Annexure A/2 (colly). The respondent is employed in the Police Department and is posted at Village Sargaon, Pathariya Tehsil, District Bilaspur (C.G.). As per his latest salary slip, he is currently drawing a net salary of Rs. 44,741/- per month, and his salary has increased over the previous months as well. The salary slips for the months of 23.07.2023, and September 2023 are annexed herewith as Annexure A/3 (colly). 4. The respondent has filed a reply to the said application and denied all the averments made by the applicant. He has falsely claimed that the applicant earns a monthly income from her beauty parlour, which is untrue. The respondent has also alleged that the applicant’s father is financially sound and ow0ns a big house. However, in reality, the applicant’s father is a retired government servant and receives only a limited pension. The respondent has further claimed that most of his income is spent on his father’s treatment, which is again false, as his father is currently in good health and stays with the respondent’s elder brother, who is a Sub-Inspector posted at Katghora. The respondent, in fact, belongs to a financially well-off family. 5. Learned Family Court has recorded the statements of both parties. Witnesses, including the applicant and the respondent, were examined before the Court. 6. Learned Family Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 19.07.2023, has partially allowed the application filed by the applicant and held that she is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month. 4 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the maintenance amount awarded is not sufficient for the applicant to lead a normal and dignified life. Learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the statements of the parties, wherein it has been clearly stated that the applicant is not earning. The respondent’s claim that the applicant owns a beauty parlour and earns a substantial income is entirely false and baseless. In reality, the applicant is a homemaker, and she, along with her child, is entirely dependent upon her aged and retired father, who receives only a limited amount as pension. He further submits that the beauty parlour referred to by the respondent does not belong to the applicant but is in fact owned by the applicant’s sister-in-law. The relevant document relating to the ownership of the said beauty parlour is annexed herewith as Annexure A/4. He also submits that there has been a clear and blatant violation of the well- settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha. He submits that applicant not only suffers from serious health issues, as already mentioned and substantiated through documents annexed as Annexure A/2, but also remains unemployed and has the responsibility of raising a child. She currently resides in a rented accommodation for which she pays Rs. 3,500/- per month. The relevant rental agreement (Kirayanama) is annexed herewith as Annexure A/5. The impugned order is bad in law, perverse, and arbitrary. The learned Court ought to have acknowledged the fact that the respondent is the only earning member, and a proper balance ought to have been struck while awarding maintenance to the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 9. 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 partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- in favor of the applicant, observing the income, social and economic status of both parties and the current price index, which cannot be said to be on the lower side." 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek