1 2025:CGHC:22591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 16 of 2024 Smt. Manju Dewangan Rakesh Dewangan Aged About 34 Years R/o Through Father Maniklal Dewangan, Risali Bhatha, Ispat Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, Thana- Newai, Tehsil And Distt- Durg, CG ... Applicant versus Rakesh Dewangan S/o Pusauram Dewangan Aged About 37 Years R/o Awadhpuri Naka Chowk, Bhatapara, Thana- Tikrapara, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Cg Address Of The Shop - Maa Sharda Electronics, Mahadev Ghat Thana- D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Cg ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Not noticed Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 09/06/ 2025 1. The present revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 & 401 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) wherein application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant herein was partly allowed. Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.06.11 12:28:18 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the amount increased by the learned Family Court as maintenance is too meager which may be enhanced suitably. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and perused the documents annexed with the revision including the impugned order. 4. The applicant herein had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance and vide order dated 09.07.2019, the application was allowed and an order of maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- in favour of the applicant herein was passed. The applicant herein had filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) for increasing the amount of maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Learned Principal judge after appreciating statements of both the parties as well as oral and documentary evidence available on record partly allowed the application and increased the amount of Rs.500/- towards maintenance and thereby maintenance amount was fixed to Rs.3,500/-. 5. Having carefully examined the impugned order, I find no perversity, illegality, or inconsistency in the findings recorded by the learned Principal Judge. The conclusions appear to be well-reasoned and are duly supported by the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 6. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham