1 2025:CGHC:41478 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1245 of 2024 Rampal Diwan S/o Shri Jaiylal Aged About 64 Years R/o Sarai Dafai New Ledari, Police Station Jhagrakhand, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Krishna Diwan W/o Shri Rampal Diwan Aged About 55 Years R/o Hospital Dafai Haldibadi, Chirmiri, Police Station Chirmiri, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Surbhi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.61/2024, whereby the application filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C preferred by the applicant has been rejected. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.20 10:50:20 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant/husband filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court, stating that maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month was earlier granted to the respondent by order dated 05.12.2012. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. on 03.12.2019, which was allowed by the learned Court, enhancing the maintenance amount by Rs.3,000/-, thereby fixing it at Rs.8,000/- per month. After the said enhancement, the applicant retired from service and now receives only Rs.21,000/- per month as pension. Thus, his income has substantially reduced. The applicant is 64 years old and suffers from various ailments, including poor eyesight. He depends on a tiffin service for his meals and incurs monthly expenses of approximately Rs.13,500/-, leaving him with savings of only around Rs.7,500/-. Therefore, he is financially unable to pay Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance and seeks a reduction of Rs.3,000/- from the said amount. The respondent filed a reply denying the applicant’s averments and prayed for dismissal of the application. The learned Family Court, vide order dated 20.08.2024, dismissed the applicant’s application. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is bad in law, perverse, erroneous, and contrary to the facts and legal provisions. Hence, being aggrieved, the applicant prefers this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred both in facts and in law in dismissing the applicant’s application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is a retired 3 employee and receives only Rs.21,000/- per month as pension. The applicant is suffering from various ailments and has impaired vision. He depends on a tiffin service for his meals. His monthly expenditure is approximately Rs.13,500/-, leaving him with only around Rs.7,500/- after expenses. For the aforesaid reasons, the applicant is unable to pay Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. The respondent is financially better placed than the applicant. The respondent is residing at her maternal home without any sufficient or justified reason. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the grounds cited by the applicant for seeking a modification in the maintenance amount do not appear to be appropriate or satisfactory. Therefore, there seems to be no need to make any change in the existing maintenance order in favour of the respondent. As a result, the application filed by the applicant under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/-/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti