1 2025:CGHC:25097 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 113 of 2018 Smt. Suman Mutha W/o Praveen Mutha, Aged About 35 Years R/o Dharam Nagar, Pachpedhi Naka Near Sai Fancy Stores, ahead of Narendra Kirana Shop, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Praveen Mutha S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Mutha Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. C/77, Beside Aditya Coaching Center, Vidhansabha Road Police Station Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.18 19:05:38 +0530 2 “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and suitably enhance the maintenance already awarded in favour of applicant to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- in the interest justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and non-applicant are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 21.01.2008, at Arya Samaj Mandir, Baijnathpara, Raipur. They are now living separately. After marriage, the couple resided together in a rented house, but the non-applicant began subjecting the applicant to physical and mental cruelty. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Family Court, Raipur, which was settled through a compromise in the Lok Adalat on 23.11.2013. The non-applicant agreed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance. The applicant filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, seeking interim relief. The Court ordered the non- applicant to pay Rs. 4,000/- as interim maintenance on 17.10.2016. The non-applicant appealed against this order before the Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur and the same was reduced as interim maintenance to Rs. 2,000/- per month on 14.12.2017. 4. The applicant, living in a rented house with no source of income, filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance, citing the non-applicant's increased 3 income from his medical agency and agricultural land. She sought Rs. 30,000/- per month. The learned Family Court partly allowed the application and enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 15,000/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 14.12.2017, is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, warranting enhancement of maintenance. He submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate the applicant's living situation and insufficient maintenance. The learned Family Court overlooked the non-applicant's substantial income from his business and agricultural land. He further submits that the enhanced maintenance amount is insufficient, considering the applicant's needs and expenses, and should be increased to Rs. 30,000/-. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal M.J.C. No. 786/2016. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. was filed before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur for enhancement of maintenance citing the non-applicant's increased 4 income from his medical agency and agricultural land. She sought Rs. 30,000/- per month and the same was partly allowed the application and enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 15,000/- per month, therefore, order passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur, is just and proper, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from todayfor necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek