1 2025:CGHC:40117 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 81 of 2024 Smt. Sunita Pandram W/o Gopal Singh Pandram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Manjhwapara, Sarkanda, Hanuman Mandir, Near Purana Pump House, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address (Old Address) Rajkisore Nagar, Senior M.I.G-11, Father Dr. Jawala Prasad Tiwari, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.), Now Present Address- Natraj Dealy Needs In Front Of Bank Of Badoda Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Gopal Singh Pandram S/o Baisakhuram Pandram Aged About 49 Years R/o Hanuman Mandir, Near Purana Pump House, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address- Pradhan Pathak, Midle School Tilaknagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Famiily Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 396/2021, whereby the learned Famiily Court, rejected the application under Section 127 of the CrPC =led by the applicant for enhancement of maintenance. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant =led an application under section 127 of Cr.P.C for enhance the maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- Per month before Famiily Court concerned pleading inter-alia that their marriage has been solemnized according to their custom, at Jagadalpur, District – Jagdalpur. After some time, the respondent has abused and used =lthy languages and commit marpit to the present applicant, when the respondent was denied living with her and torture her, therefore she =led application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Famiily Court Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur. Vide judgment dated 12.04.2018 the Famiily Court has allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and granted 11,000/- Per month maintains to the applicants. The respondent/ husband of the applicant is government employee working as Teacher (Head master) Middle School at Tilaknagar Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur and he is withdrawing Rs. 83,926/- Per month. Thereafter, the applicant =led an application under Section 127 of CrPC before the Family Court concerned for enhancement of the maintenance amount. 4. The respondent herein has =led the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Famiily Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Famiily Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Famiily Court by passing the impugned order, has rejected the application under Section 127 of the CrPC =led by the applicant for enhancement of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that when the maintenance amount of Rs. 11,000/- was granted to the applicant, the respondent in service and that time his salary was about Rs. 70,000/- per month, now he has withdrawing the 3 salary of Rs. 83,926/- per month. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Famiily Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Famiily Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and in=rmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi=ed copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar