1 2025:CGHC:40170 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 132 of 2023 Shri Shobha Singh S/o Late Ram Ratan Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Shivpur, Post- Bardar, Thana And Tehsil- Khadgawan, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Kumari Nishi D/o Shri Shobha Singh Aged About 15 Years Minor Caste Godh, R/o Village Dubchhola Post- Sonamani, Tehsil- Khadgawa, District- Korea Chhattisgarh. Through The Natural Guardian Mother, Smt. Shanti, D/o Baccha Lal, Caste- Gond, R/o Village-Dubchhola, Post Sonamani, Thana And Teshil- Khadgawa, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.24/2022, whereby, the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs.8,000/- per month. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that more than seven years have passed since the date of the order, and the cost of living has increased significantly. At the time of the order, the applicant was posted as a teacher in Class 2 at Village Berdar, and currently, he is posted at the High School in Village Berdar, earning a monthly salary of over Rs 50,000/-. The respondent is presently appearing for her 10th -grade examination and plans to study at St. Xavier's School in Baikunthpur in the upcoming session due to the lack of educational facilities in her village. The respondent estimates that the expenses for admission and hostel accommodation will be around Rs 7,000/- to Rs 8,000/- per month. Therefore, she is seeking an increase in maintenance to Rs 8,000/- per month. Thereafter, the applicant field reply and denied the allegations and claims alleged by the respondent. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in not reasonably enhancing the amount of maintenance earlier granted. Further failed to consider that the applicant is willing to keep his daughter with him, care for her, and fulfill all her needs, as evidenced by an application filed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. He further 3 submits that the Family Court should have dismissed the application, considering that the applicant is not evading his liability. He also submits that the Family Court overlooked the fact that the applicant, being a high school teacher and the sole earning member of his family, has other liabilities, rendering the impugned order liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs.8,000/- per month, considering that there had been material change in the circumstances of both the applicant and the respondent since the earlier maintenance order as the increased educational and hostel expenses of the applicant and the enhanced income of respondent, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding 4 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil