1 2025:CGHC:30929 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1516 of 2019 1. Smt. Babita Mishra W/o Shri Laxmikant Mishra Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Asna, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2. Himanshu Mishra S/o Shri Laxmikant Mishra, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Asna, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Laxmikant Mishra S/o Late Raghunath Mishra Aged About 59 Years R/o Type - 2, Number - 58, F. O. H. Colony Bacheli, Police Station Bacheli, District - Dakshin Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bastar, Place - Jagdalpur (C.G.) in M.J.C No.48/2019, whereby PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.08 11:30:09 +0530 2 the learned Family Court has parlty allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the respondent/husband that he pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- (total Rs. 6,000/-) to the respondent No. 2/son, as maintenance amount from the date of order. 2. The brief facts of the case is that applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife and applicant No. 2 is son of the respondent, who suffers from a 60% permanent disability, are seeking enhancement of maintenance allowance. The marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent took place on 16.02.1997, resulting in the birth of applicant No. 2 on 30.11.1999. However, the respondent allegedly harassed the applicants and expelled them from his house in 2008. A panchayat meeting was convened for reconciliation, where the respondent committed to taking them back but failed to comply. Consequently, the applicants filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the CrPC, which was allowed on 31.08.2009, granting Rs.1,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No. 2. Due to irregular payments, the applicants sought enhancement under Section 127 of the CrPC in 2019. Despite presenting unrebutted evidence, the Family Court partly allowed the application on 31.08.2019, enhancing the maintenance to Rs. 3,000 each for both applicants. The applicants contend that this amount is insufficient for their survival and have thus filed this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has erred in enhancing such meager amount vide order dated 31-08-2019. It has not appreciated evidence available on the record, properly. It is well settled that expanses of education and treatment of a child and wife is an important facets of maintenance 3 allowance, but the learned Family Court has failed to consider it, properly. The learned Family Court has passed order for grant of maintenance in the year 2009 and after 10 years such application for enhancement of maintenance allowance has been submitted. Admittedly, there is inflation of household articles but the learned Family Court has failed to consider such important aspect, properly. The order impugned suffers from material illegality and deserves to be set aside/quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that it has been stated in judicial statement under oath by applicant No. 1 to the respondent that he is doing Class I contract work in NMDC Bacheli and is an income tax payer earning Rs. 2,00,000/- per month, which has not been attempted to be refuted by the respondent party by appearing and challenging it. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the respondent appears capable to bear the increase in the monthly maintenance amount passed earlier in favour of the applicants and in the circumstances of the case, the application submitted by the applicants is found to be acceptable. Therefore, the monthly maintenance amount passed earlier on 31.08.2009 in favour of the applicants by Rs. 2000/-, 1000/- is increased to Rs. 3000/-, 3000/- respectively, totaling Rs. 6000/-. 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 herein 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. 4 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti