1 2025:CGHC:27734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 14 of 2019 Santosh Banjare S/o Shri A.D. Banjare Aged About 40 Years Occupation Upper, Division Teacher R/o Vivekanand Colony Bazardand Jashpur Nagar Higher Secondary School Jashpur Nagar District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Master Gaurav Banjare S/o Santosh Banjare Aged About 07 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Indu Banjare W/o Shri Santosh Banjare Aged About 31years, occupation Housewife R/o Somni, Police Station Somni Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.09.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.155/2015, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127(1) of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent by enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to 5,500/- and directed to pay Rs.5,500/- towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 127(1) for enhancement of maintenance amount. On 20.03.2014 in Misc. Cr. Case No. 110/2009, Rs. 5,000/- maintenance amount already receiving by the applicant. The respondent’s mother further pleaded that the her son is studying in Sanskar City International School, Thakurtola, Rajnandgaon and his yearly fees comes to Rs. 50,000/- and now due to increase in prices, she claims Rs. 15,000/- per month maintenance amount. The applicant filed its reply and specifically stated that in Civil Suit No. 116-A/2013 Santosh Banjare Vs. Indu Banjare, in which respondent’s mother admitted that she is financially sound and having fixed deposit of Rs. 40,00,000/-. He further pleaded that the decree of divorce has been granted in favour of applicant on the ground of adultery. Thereafter, learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence available on record enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 5,500/-. Hence, the criminal revision. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the Family Court failed to appreciate that prima facie the respondent’s mother stated wrong version and in para 8 of her cross-examination, she admits that respondent is not studying in Sanskar City International School and further she admits that Rs.4,500/- school fees is according to his previous school i.e. Sanskar City International School, further failed to appreciate that she has not filed any documents related to present schools (fees structure). He also submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the documents filed by the respondent i.e. exhibit D.1 to Ex. D.2, in fact in applicant's family is joint family and applicant is the sole earning member having mother, father who are suffering from different diseases. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent by enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to 5,500/- and directed the pay Rs.5,500/- per 4 month to respondent towards maintenance observing that the respondent’s mother, Indu Banjare, stated in her affidavit that a previous court order dated March 20, 2014, had directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000 per month as maintenance. At the time of filing the maintenance application, her son Gaurav was only one and a half years old and did not attend school. Currently, Gaurav is studying in Class 3 at Sanskar City International School, Thakur Tola, Rajnandgaon, where the annual fee is Rs.50,000. The respondent’s mother stated that the respondent requires Rs.4,500 per month for school fees, Rs.1,000 for milk, and approximately Rs.6,000 for medicines and other expenses, totaling Rs.11,500 per month. The applicant is working as a higher-grade teacher and currently earns a monthly salary of Rs.55,000. Previously, when the respondent’s mother filed a maintenance applicant, the applicant’s salary was Rs.16,000 per month. The respondent’s mother requested an increase in maintenance to Rs.15,000 per month, considering the increased expenses and the applicant’s higher salary, increased cost of living, the Family Court found it justifiable to increase the maintenance amount. Although there is no conclusive evidence of the applicant’s current income, it cannot be ignored that Rs.5,000 is insufficient for the respondent’s needs. The applicant mentioned that he has the burden of supporting his parents and younger brother, but he did not provide any documentary evidence to support this claim. Considering the applicant’s increased salary 5 over the past four years, the Family Court came to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to increase the maintenance amount to Rs.5,500 per month. 8. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil