1 2025:CGHC:30238 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1412 of 2018 Smt. Kiran Sharma W/o Dr. Arvind Sharma Aged About 43 Years R/o House Of M.S. Dange, In Front Of Neha Fanchy Store, Handipara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Dr. Arvind Sharma S/o D.R. Sharama Aged About 49 Years R/o In Front Of Shiv Mandir, Chandra Colony, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Office - Government Homeopathic Hospital, Basantpur, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Sakshi Chhabra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Sakshi Chhabra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 06.11.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Judicial Case No. 184/2013, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for enhancement of maintenance, and directed the respondent that he has to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and they are living separately. The Family Court, Raipur in Case No.581/2008 which was filed by the applicant Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- vide order dated 11.01.2010. On account of enhancement and hike in price, the applicant filed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC for enhancement of maintenance amount to Rs. 15,000/- per month. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for enhancement of maintenance, and directed the respondent that he has to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the learned family court failed to see that there is hike in price at present, and therefore, the applicant is entitled for maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 06.11.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur 3 (C.G.) in Misc. Judicial Case No. 184/2013, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for enhancement of maintenance, and directed the respondent that he has to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar