1 2025:CGHC:30932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1445 of 2019 1 - Smt. Sunita Dewangan W/o Shri Gayaram Dewangan Aged About 39 Years R/o Near Banstaal, Madhav Rao Sapre Ward, No. 68, Raipura, Police Station Pt. Dindayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Montu Dewangan S/o Shri Gayaram Dewangan Aged About 13 Years Through Guardian / Mother Smt. Sunita Dewangan, R/o Near Banstaal, Madhav Rao Sapre Ward, No. 68, Raipura, Police Station Pt. Dindayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Gayaram Dewangan S/o Thanwar Dewangan Aged About 51 Years R/o L.D.C. Physical Education Department, Office Address Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Satyendra Srivas, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Satyendra Srivas, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned award dt. 26.08.2019 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C no. 458/18, between “Smt. Sunita Dewangan Vs. Gayaram Dewangan” in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant No.1 and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites and have been living separately. In 2010, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by order dated 28.10.2010, granting maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to the wife and minor child. Subsequently, an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 375/2014, wherein the maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- each for the wife and the child by order dated 10.02.2016 (Annexure A/2). The respondent challenged this order by filing Criminal Revision No. 315/2016, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 01.07.2016 (Annexure A/3), thereby upholding the increased maintenance. After three years, due to rising expenses and the growing needs of the child, another application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed in MJC No. 458/2016. However, the learned Family Court, Raipur, while passing the impugned order dated 26.08.2019, erroneously interpreted the earlier orders and treated the previous maintenance 3 as Rs. 1,500/- each instead of Rs. 3,000/- per person. Accordingly, the maintenance was increased from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 4,000/- for the wife and from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- for the child. Being aggrieved by this incorrect interpretation and inadequate enhancement, the present revision petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed a grave error in the impugned order dated 26.08.2019 (Annexure A/1) by erroneously interpreting the earlier maintenance order as Rs. 1,500/- per person instead of Rs. 3,000/- each, as clearly directed in the previous orders dated 01.07.2016 (in CRR No. 315/2016) and 10.02.2016 (in Misc. Criminal Case No. 375/2016). Due to this incorrect interpretation, the enhanced maintenance amount after a gap of three years and rising inflation has increased by merely Rs. 1,000/-, resulting in a total maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- (i.e., Rs. 4,000/- for applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- for applicant No. 2), which is grossly inadequate as the applicants were earlier granted Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- each). Furthermore, this misinterpretation has also led to a flawed calculation of arrears of maintenance, treating the original award as Rs. 1,500/- instead of Rs. 3,000/- per applicant, thereby changing the true intent and meaning of the earlier orders, including the one passed by this Court in CRR No. 315/2016. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, 4 Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant No.1 and the respondent were married in accordance with Hindu rites and have been living separately. Initially, in 2010, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by order dated 28.10.2010, granting maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- in total to the wife and the minor child. Later, considering the change in circumstances and the increased financial needs, an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 375/2014, which was rightly allowed on 10.02.2016, enhancing the maintenance to Rs. 3,000/- each. The said enhancement was challenged by the respondent in Criminal Revision No. 315/2016, but the Hon’ble High Court, after due consideration, dismissed the revision on 01.07.2016, affirming the correctness of the enhanced amount. After a gap of more than three years, taking into account inflation, increased cost of living, and the growing needs of the child, another application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicants in MJC No. 458/2016. The learned Family Court, Raipur, after appreciating the facts and circumstances, rightly exercised its jurisdiction and passed the impugned order dated 26.08.2019, enhancing the maintenance to Rs. 4,000/- for the wife and Rs. 3,000/- for the child. The Family Court’s decision is just, well-reasoned, and in line with both the 5 legal principles and the welfare objective underlying Section 127 Cr.P.C. 8. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan