1 2025:CGHC:36127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 96 of 2023 Satpal Singh Pahuja @ Prince S/o Gurubachan Singh, Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Gurunanak Gate, Kawardha, Police Station And Tehsil Kawardha,, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Preeti Pahuja W/o Satpal Singh @ Prince Pahuja Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Saarthipara, Bahadur Ganj Ward, Near Transformer, Kawardha, Police Station And Tehsil Kawardha,, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Avneet Kaur Pahuja, Aged About 17 Years Through Natural Gardian Mother Preeti Pauja Aged 35 Years W/o Satpal Singh @ Prince Pahuja Resident Of Saarthipara, Bahadur Ganj Ward, Near Transformer, Kawardha, Police Station And Tehsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ranpreet Kaur Pahuja, Aged About 12 Years Through Guardian Mother Preeti Pahuja, Aged 35 Year W/o Satpal Singh @ Prince Pahuja Resident Of Saarthipara, Bahadur Ganj Ward, Near Transformer, Kawardha, Police Station And Tehsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 25.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 23/12/2022 passed by Family Court Kabirdham (Kawardha) in MJC No.56/2021. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant against the non-applicants.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 8,600/- to Rs. 13,000/- per month. Earlier, in MJC No. 145/2015 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- was awarded, which was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- by the this Court in Criminal Revision No. 979/2015, and later to Rs. 8,600/- in MJC No. 40/2018. The non- applicants contended that three years had passed since the last order, their daughters’ educational expenses had increased, prices of daily necessities had risen, and the applicant’s income had substantially increased to about Rs. 8 lakhs annually from taxi and 3 business operations. The applicant opposed, denying ownership of vehicles or firms, claiming unemployment and poor financial condition, and asserting that the non-applicants had rental income and earnings from a tiffin business. After considering the rival submissions and evidence, the Family Court held the non- applicants entitled to enhancement, granting Rs. 1,000/- additional to non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,200/- additional each to non- applicants No. 2 and 3, thereby fixing the total maintenance at Rs. 12,000/- per month. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in law as well as on facts and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law and failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it. The trial Court erred in failing to appreciate that there was no cogent evidence on record to show that the applicant had the financial capacity to pay the enhanced maintenance, particularly when his earlier Criminal Revision No. 1201 of 2018 was already pending before the this Court. It further failed to consider that the applicant is living hand-to-mouth and lacks sufficient means to bear the increased amount. The non- applicants also failed to establish by any reliable evidence that the applicant is earning substantial income to justify enhancement. Moreover, the Family Court did not properly record findings regarding the applicant’s actual income and ignored the severe financial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on small businesses and 4 daily wage earners. It also failed to appreciate that the applicant earns his livelihood merely as a puncture mechanic for bicycles, a trade that has declined considerably in recent years, thereby rendering the enhanced maintenance wholly unjustified. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District - Kawardha (Kabirdham), (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon a thorough consideration of the pleadings and evidence, rightly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and enhanced the maintenance amount. The Court correctly observed that more than three years had passed since the last enhancement, during which the non-applicants’ daughters had grown up, their educational and living expenses had substantially increased, and the overall cost of living had risen due to inflation. It also took into account the evidence indicating improvement in the applicant’s financial position, including ownership of vehicles and business interests, and found that he had sufficient means to provide the enhanced maintenance. Balancing the needs of the non-applicants with the means of the applicant, the Family Court reasonably increased the maintenance by Rs. 1,000/- for non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,200/- each for non-applicants No. 5 2 and 3, thereby fixing the total maintenance at Rs. 12,000/- per month. The impugned order is thus well-reasoned, just, and in accordance with law. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan