1 2025:CGHC:59186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1480 of 2025 Pradeep Choudhary S/o Udaybhanu Choudhary Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Jognipali, Police Station And Tahsil- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Meena Choudhary W/o Pradeep Choudhary Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Piparkhunta, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)(Wrongly Mentioned As Pradeep Choudhary S/o Udaybhanu Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village- Jognipali, Police Station And Tahsil- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) In The Impugned Order) 2 - Minor Deepika D/o Pradeep Choudhary Aged About 9 Years Minors Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Meena Choudhary, R/o Village- Piparkhunta, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As Pradeep Choudhary S/o Udaybhanu Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village- Jognipali, Police Station And Tahsil- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) In The Impugned Order) 3 - Minor Yashika D/o Pradeep Choudhary Aged About 3 Years Minors Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Meena Choudhary, R/o Village- Piparkhunta, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As Pradeep Choudhary S/o Udaybhanu AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village- Jognipali, Police Station And Tahsil- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) In The Impugned Order) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05 /12/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Mahasamund, Link Court, Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.02/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the and enhanced the maintenance awarded to the from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.14,000/- per month (6,000/- per month to respondent No.2, 4,000/- per month for respondent No.2 and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.3). 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondentss had earlier filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 42/2019. By order dated 27.11.2020, the Family Court directed the present applicant to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month as total maintenance to the respondentss. Thereafter, the respondentss filed a fresh application on 16.01.2023, stating that they were living together and dependent on the maintenance 3 amount paid by the applicant. They submitted that both the daughters were now grown up and pursuing higher education, leading to increased expenses on their education and health. They further stated that the cost of essential commodities had increased and the existing maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- was insufficient. It was also alleged that the applicant was financially capable and owned 30 acres of agricultural land, earning approximately Rs. 15 lakhs annually. On these grounds, they prayed for enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The applicant filed his reply on 19.07.2023, denying the allegations and asserting that the amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month already being paid was sufficient. He contended that there had been no increase in his income, the agricultural land was jointly owned and not partitioned, and his share would be only 6–7 acres. He further stated that both children were studying in a government school where no fees were charged, and the respondentss had produced no proof of increased educational expenses. He alleged that respondents No.1 was living with her parents and the application was filed merely to harass him. He claimed financial incapacity to pay more than the existing amount and sought dismissal of the enhancement application. After considering the pleadings and material on record, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2025, directing the applicant to pay enhanced maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to respondents No.1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month 4 each to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, totaling Rs. 14,000/- per month. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 enhancing maintenance from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 14,000/- per month is illegal, perverse, and contrary to law. The Family Court failed to record any specific finding regarding a real and material change in circumstances since the earlier order dated 27.11.2020. The respondentss produced no credible evidence to justify enhancement and even suppressed facts by filing outdated school documents, although both children are presently studying free of cost in a Government school. He further submits that the applicant’s financial condition has not improved; rather, it has deteriorated due to his post-surgical health issues and limited agricultural income. The Family Court wrongly presumed that the applicant owns 25-30 acres of land and earns Rs. 15 lakhs annually, despite there being no documentary proof. In reality, after partition among eight co-sharers, the applicant’s share of land is only about 6–7 acres, yielding a very low annual income, insufficient even for his own livelihood and medical expenses. He also submits that the enhanced maintenance amount constitutes an excessive and disproportionate burden on the applicant, amounting to nearly 60–70% of his actual monthly income. The Court also failed to consider that respondents No.1 lives with her parents without incurring rent or major expenses. The order is cryptic, non-reasoned, and passed mechanically, 5 resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, and is therefore liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the and enhanced the maintenance awarded to the from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.14,000/- per month considering that the pleadings, evidence, and overall circumstances presented by both parties, it is evident that the maintenance amount fixed in the year 2020 is no longer adequate in view of the current cost of living, rising prices, educational expenses, and the increasing needs of the growing children. The applicant is an established and financially capable agriculturist, possessing substantial agricultural land and income sources, which he has also admitted during his testimony. On the other hand, the respondents are entirely dependent on the maintenance amount and have no independent source of income. Therefore, keeping in mind the increased expenses relating to livelihood, education, and medical needs, enhancement of the previously determined maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is found just, reasonable, and necessary. Accordingly, the maintenance amount is rightly enhanced to a total of Rs. 14,000/- per month. 6 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil