1 2025:CGHC:30240 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1325 of 2018 Ku. Seema Mahanand D/o Fulsiya Mahanand Aged About 23 Years R/o Purena Storepara, Bhilai 3, Police Station - G.R.P., District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Phulasiya Mahanand S/o Late Ishwar Mahanand Aged About 49 Years R/o Quarter No. 43, Railway Colony, Bhilai 3, Police Station - G.R.P., District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. V.B. Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. V.B. Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in MJC No. 226/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for enhancement of maintenance, and directed the respondent that he has to pay the maintenance to the tune of RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicant. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant has earlier moved an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. bearing M.J.C No. 217/2013 against the non-applicant and the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg vide order dated 17.06.2015 has granted a maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant. After 2 years i.e. on 21.08.2017 due to the circumstantial and monetary change of situations, the applicant has moved an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking the enhancement in the earlier maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- be granted by the learned Family Court. The applicant in her application has submitted that she is perusing her education and has joined coaching for competitive exams and wants to learn typing and computer so that she can procure a job and earn her own livelihood and the applicant has also submitted that the non- applicant is employed under South East Central Railway and presently drawing a handsome salary Rs. 52,000-53,000/- per month and looking to the hike in education expenses the applicant has prayed for the increase in maintenance. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for enhancement of maintenance, and directed the respondent that he has to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicant. Hence, this revision. 3 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has overlooked the fact that the applicant is trying to stand on her own legs and have joined several coaching classes and the amount of Rs. 4,000/- is very meager and low thus the same is liable to be enhanced. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, 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. 9. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar