1 2025:CGHC:40149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1024 of 2023 Bhup Sai S/o Late Shri Muluk Sai Aged About 66 Years Caste- Gond, Resident Of Village- Kanchanpur, Police Station And Tahsil- Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Kayaso Bai W/o Bhup Sai Aged About 60 Years Caste Gond, Resident Of Village Pandavpara, Police Station And Tahsil- Patna, District- Koriya (C.G.), At Present Resident Of Village- Kanchanpur, Post- Kanchanpur, Police Station And Tahsil- Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Non-applicant : None present. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2023 passed by learned Family Court, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Manendragarh Camp, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 104/2022, "parties being Smt. Kayaso Bai Vs. Bhup Sai", in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that there is no dispute that the non- applicant had earlier :led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance against the applicant, in which, on 29.12.2012, an order was passed granting her ₹3,000/- per month as maintenance. Later, on 27.09.2016, the applicant again :led for enhancement of maintenance, and on 28.07.2017, the maintenance amount was increased by ₹1,000/-, making the total ₹4,000 per month. In the present application, the non-applicant stated that she is an elderly woman and remains ill most of the time. It has become di@cult to manage her expenses within ₹4,000/- per month. Due to rising inBation and increased prices of goods, and her recurring medical needs, she seeks enhancement of maintenance to ₹10,000/- per month. She further stated that the non-applicant was a senior employee in SECL Colliery, whose monthly salary had increased before he retired. Upon retirement, he received gratuity and other retirement bene:ts amounting to ₹45–50 lakhs, which he has deposited in the bank. She claims the applicant also owns a tractor, an Omni van, and ten acres of agricultural land, earns a good income, and keeps another woman as his concubine. She further alleges that the applicant did not contribute to their daughter’s marriage expenses, forcing her to take loans to conduct the wedding, and she now owes around ₹2.5 lakh to shopkeepers. 3 Therefore, she :led an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, sought maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month. 4. The applicant, while admitting only the undisputed facts, has denied all other statements of the non-applicant. He claims he is a 70-year- old elderly man, who often falls ill due to a stomach operation, and has no source of income. He lives with his son Ramsingh, who takes care of him and bears all his medical expenses. He stated that he resides in the house built by him and lives with their younger son Chinta Singh. He asserts that the retirement bene:ts he received were distributed equally among all his sons, daughters, and wife, and he has no remaining funds. He further denies owning any tractor, Omni van, or land. He claims he bore the entire expenses for his daughter’s wedding. 5. After considering the rival submission of the parties, the learned Family Court has come to the conclusion that looking to the medical documents has partly allowed the application of the non-applicant and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/-.Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the non-applicant is already getting Rs. 4,000/- per month as a maintenance amount from the present applicant and is residing in the house constructed by the present applicant but the learned Family Court has not considered the same before enhancing the maintenance amount. He further submits that the present applicant as well as the non- applicant both are suHering from some common disease which is 4 natural. The non-applicant is not suHering from any severe disease which required more money but the learned Family before Court has not considered the enhancing the maintenance amount further the non-applicant has not adduced any evidence with to regard enhancement of maintenance amount but the learned Family Court without any basis only on the sympathetic ground enhanced the maintenance amount by passing the impugned order, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. The present applicant has already given Rs. 3 lacs to the non-applicant after the retirement from SECL and thus she is not required more money for maintenance but the learned Family Court has not considered the same before passing the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the non- applicant (wife) had initially :led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, in which an order was passed granting her ₹3,000/- per month. Thereafter, owing to the rise in prices of essential commodities, she :led an application for enhancement, upon which the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance from ₹3,000/- to ₹4,000/- per month. Subsequently, on account of her medical condition and the prevailing cost of living, she again moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court, after considering the submissions of both 5 parties and having due regard to the ailments and needs of the non- applicant, enhanced the maintenance from ₹4,000/- to ₹5,000/- per month. The husband has now preferred the present revision seeking to set aside the said enhancement order. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record, this Court :nds no illegality, perversity, or error apparent in the order passed by the learned Family Court. The enhancement is modest, reasonable, and commensurate with the medical needs and living expenses of the non-applicant. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. O@ce is directed to send a certi:ed copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal