1 2025:CGHC:29574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 932 of 2016 Dharmeshwar Singh S/o Jageshwar Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Gadhtar, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Premwati W/o Dharmeshwar Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Gadhtar, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea Chhattisgarh 2 - Sachin Singh S/o Dharmeshwar Singh Aged About 6 Years Minor. Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Premwati W/o Dharmeshwar Singh Aged About 34 Years. R/o Village Gadhtar, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. None for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.06/2015, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents, whereby the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount awarded to the respondents from Rs.800/- to Rs.2,500/- for respondent No.1 and from Rs.200/- to Rs.2,500/- to respondent No.2. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that due to the lack of proper educational facilities in Village Painari, she enrolled her son, Sachin, in St. Patrick's School in Manendragarh. To facilitate her son's education, she rented a house near the school in Village Choughda. The annual fee for Sachin at St. Patrick's Academy is Rs.5,500/- and additional expenses for uniforms and books amount to Rs.5,000. The monthly living expenses for Sachin are Rs.5,000/- and the rent for the house is Rs.2,000/-. Due to rising costs, the respondents are facing difficulties in meeting these expenses and is relying on financial support from her parents and relatives. The applicant is employed as an Assistant Teacher with a monthly salary of Rs.21,540/-. The respondent requests an increase in the monthly maintenance allowance for herself and her son to Rs.10,000/-, considering the increased expenses and the applicant's financial capacity the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount awarded to 3 the respondents from Rs.800/- to Rs.2,500/- for respondent No.1 and from Rs.200/- to Rs.2,500/- to respondent No.2. Hence, the criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Firstly, failed to recognize that the respondent No.1 has sufficient means to maintain herself. Additionally, the court did not adequately consider the applicant’s financial constraints, including a monthly salary of Rs.21,000/- and obligations to support his elderly parents and brothers. Furthermore, the Court overlooked the fact that the respondent No.1 had already received Rs.1,200/- under the Domestic Violence Act provisions. The enhanced maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is excessive and warrants reduction. Given the facts and evidence on record, the Court's order is legally unsustainable, erroneous, and contrary to established principles. Hence, the same is liable to be set- aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents, whereby the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount awarded to the respondents from Rs.800/- to Rs.2,500/- for respondent No.1 and from Rs.200/- to Rs.2,500/- to respondent No.2 observing the 4 circumstances of both parties, their economic and social status, and their needs, the Family Court concluded that it would be reasonable to grant them a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- each. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil