1 2025:CGHC:47296 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 480 of 2020 Shakuntala W/o Shri Krishna Das Mahant Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Shingitarai, P. S. And Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Krishna Das @ Krishna Kumar S/o Shri Anand Ram Aged About 59 Years R/o Balpur, District Raipur Occupation Service At N. C. L. Khadiya Project, S. R. T. -051, Post Office Shakti Nagar, District Sonbhadra U. P., District : Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.02.2020 passed by learned Family Court, (Circuit) Sakti, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.167/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for enhancement of maintenance. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent, their marriage having been solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals, but within a few months of marriage the respondent began to treat the applicant with cruelty and ultimately deserted her without any justifiable cause. Consequently, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti (then in the State of Madhya Pradesh) in Misc. Criminal Case No.184/1996, wherein by order dated 06.11.1996 the learned Court directed payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. Owing to rising prices and inflation, the applicant thereafter filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Judge, Sakti, seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs.5,000/- per month. On 10.02.2020, due to medical reasons, the applicant was unable to appear personally and authorised her attorney to represent her, but the learned Family Court rejected the plea and closed the proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. without affording a proper opportunity of hearing or allowing the applicant to adduce evidence by affidavit. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision under Section 127 Cr.P.C., hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, despite knowing that an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. requires the applicant to lead evidence through 3 documents and witnesses, failed to grant a proper opportunity of hearing and rejected the application, thereby exposing the applicant to hardship, starvation and destitution. The Court ignored the fact that the applicant had appeared through counsel and overlooked her difficult circumstances, including the sharp rise in living costs since the original order of 1996 covering essential items such as gas, groceries and medical expenses. By refusing to permit the applicant to file an affidavit or examine witnesses to establish the respondent’s continued neglect of his marital duty, the Family Court misapplied both facts and law. Sections 125–128 Cr.P.C. are intended as beneficial, social- justice provisions to protect neglected wives, children and parents from vagrancy and deprivation, yet the impugned orde was passed in disregard of this legislative purpose and without affording the applicant a fair chance to prove her claim. 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 afforded ample opportunity to the applicant to lead evidence and to file an affidavit but she failed to avail the same. An application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. requires proof of change in circumstances, the burden lay on the applicant to establish such change. Mere assertions of inflation, without supporting evidence, cannot justify enhancement of maintenance. The beneficial object 4 of Sections 125–128 Cr.P.C. is indeed to prevent destitution, yet that benevolence does not dispense with the procedural requirement of substantiating the claim. The Family Court rightly observed that the absence of medical proof for the claimed illness and repeated non-compliance with its directions disentitled the applicant to further indulgence. 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