1 2025:CGHC:45862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1610 of 2019 Sunil Kewat Son of Shri Shivpal Kewat Aged About 33 Years Resident of 64/1 Galhata, Tehsil Jaitpur, District Shadol Madhya Pradesh, At Present Resident of Jahanti Chowk Gudyari Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Mamta Kewat And Another Daughter of Late Shri Ganga Prasad Kewat Aged About 32 Years Resident of Ward No. 1 Vivekanand Colony Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 2. Utkarsh Kewat Son of Sunil Kewat Aged About 6 Years Resident of Ward No. 1 Vivekanand Colony Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.10 13:21:54 +0530 2 may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and may kindly be passed the suitable order for enhance the amount of maintenance award passed by the learned below in Misc. Criminal Case No. 36/2019, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and their marriage took place on 11.07.2008. After some time of marriage, disputes arose between the parties, and therefore, respondent No.1 started residing separately along with respondent No.2. On 02.04.2016, the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance from the applicant. 4. The applicant duly contested the said case, denied the allegations made by respondent No.1, and further stated that he was always ready to keep the respondents with him. 5. After hearing both parties, vide order dated 03.08.2017, the learned Family Court directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- each) to the respondents. 6. The aforesaid order dated 03.08.2017 was challenged by the applicant before this Hon’ble High Court vide Criminal Revision No. 823/2017, which is still pending consideration before this Hon’ble Court. 7. Thereafter, the respondents again filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded earlier. 8. Vide impugned order dated 15.11.2019, the Learned Family Court allowed the said application and enhanced the maintenance amount, directing payment of Rs. 4,500/- to respondent No.1 and Rs. 4,000/- to 3 respondent No.2. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family court is bad in law, as the Court has not considered the entire facts of the case and has allowed the application filed by the respondents merely on the basis of presumption. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to consider the fact that respondent No.1 is willfully residing separately from the applicant. Learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that there are contradictions and omissions in the statement of respondent No.1 with respect to her address. He also submits that the notice issued by this Hon’ble High Court has not been served upon the respondents at the address given by them in the cause title of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed on 02.04.2016, as well as in the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed on 03.04.2019, whereas the applicant has been unable to get the notice served. This clearly reflects the conduct of respondent No.1. He submits that while passing the impugned order dated 15.11.2019, the learned Family Court failed to consider the fact that respondent No.1 is also a working lady. Learned Family Court has not taken into account the actual income of the applicant and has erroneously awarded an excessive maintenance amount to the respondents, which is liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the 4 parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek