1 2025:CGHC:52980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1309 of 2025 Sumit Thavani S/o - Girish Thavani Aged About 30 Years R/o - House No. 38/7, Kushabhau Thakra Parishar, Opposite Block No. 2, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Minor Eshani Thavani D/o Sumit Thavani Aged About 7 Years Represented - Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Neha Mandhani, W/o - Sumit Thavani, Both Are R/o - Mata Devalaya Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District - Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30 /10/2025 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the instant criminal revision. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Baloda-Bazar- Bhatapara, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.306/2024, whereby, the learned Family Court enhanced the monthly maintenance awarded to the respondent from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact that earlier the applicant had filed a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the non- applicant, which was allowed by the Court, granting Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of maintenance, and vide order dated 24.03.2023, the Court enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.5,000/- per month. During the pendency of the present proceedings, efforts were made for compromise between the parties, but the same failed. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that due to increased cost of living and expenses towards food, clothing, education, rent, medical treatment, and other necessities, it has become impossible to sustain herself and her minor daughter with the existing 3 maintenance amount. The applicant has stated that the respondent is the proprietor of “Subhit Garments” at Raipur and earns about Rs.2,00,000/- per month, while the minor daughter, Ishani Thawani, is studying in D.P.S. School, Baloda Bazar, with an annual fee of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, she has prayed for enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. In reply, the respondent submitted that the applicant is already receiving Rs.5,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Rs.10,000/- per annum under the Domestic Violence Act. It was further contended that the applicant has a share in her father’s business, “Pooja Goods Transport,” from which she earns a considerable income, whereas the non- applicant works in his father’s business and earns only Rs.15,000/- per month. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous and suffers from apparent errors of law, thus liable to be quashed. The learned Court failed to appreciate that the applicant earns only Rs.15,000/- per month by assisting his father in business, which was not disputed by the respondent. Despite this, two separate maintenance proceedings were instituted within the same district one by the applicant’s wife under Section 12 of the Domestic 4 Violence Act (M.C.C. No. 31/2019), wherein Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.20,000/- one-time relief were awarded, and another by the minor daughter under Section 146 of the B.N.S.S. (M.C.C. No. 306/2024), wherein Rs.8,000 per month was granted. The learned Family Court erred in awarding maintenance beyond the applicant’s actual income, without considering his financial capacity and existing liabilities. He further submits that the respondent’s mother, being financially independent and involved in her family’s Dal Mill business, is capable of maintaining herself. However, she has misused legal provisions by filing multiple frivolous cases only to harass the applicant and both the courts have failed to balance the financial needs of the wife and child with the applicant’s limited earning capacity, warranting interference by this Court. 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 enhanced the monthly maintenance awarded to the respondent from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month observing that the earlier maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was insufficient to meet the growing educational and living expenses of the minor child, as her age and schooling needs had increased since the previous order dated 24.03.2023. The Court further noted that the respondent’s income had likely increased, as he 5 jointly operates a garment business with his father in Raipur and frequently travels by car to attend court hearings, indicating a better financial status than claimed. Considering the rise in the cost of living and the child’s educational needs, hence, the Family Court came to the conclusion that it is just and proper to enhance the maintenance amount as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 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