1 2025:CGHC:29561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 309 of 2017 Mohammad Sarif S/o Mohammad Raza, Aged About 42 Years R/o Rozi, Riwa Batry, Near River, Manendragarh, Police Station Manendragarh, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Shahin Parveen D/o Mohammad Sarif, Minor Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Next Friend And Natural Guardian Mother Mehrunisha, Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 2 Aamakhorwa, Colony, Manendragarh, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 03.07.2015 passed by the learned Family Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 73/2013, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the the marriage between the applicant and the mother of the non-applicant was solemnized on 30.11.1994. Out of this lawful wedlock, the non-applicant was born on 10.03.1996. However, the marriage ended in divorce on 29.09.1996. The non-applicant, through his mother, earlier filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 20/2010. Vide order dated 15.12.2011, the learned Family Court awarded Rs. 700/- per month as maintenance in favour of the non-applicant. Subsequently, the non-applicant filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month, citing increase in the cost of living and educational expenses. 4. In reply to the said application, the applicant contended that he is already paying Rs. 700/- per month as directed and that after his second marriage, he has four children and a wife who are financially dependent on him. It was further submitted that the applicant had recently undergone medical treatment which caused significant financial burden due to heavy medical expenses. On these grounds, the applicant prayed for dismissal of the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 5. After recording evidence from both the parties, the learned Family Court found that the non-applicant was entitled to enhance in the maintenance amount considering the rising cost of living and 3 educational needs. The learned Family Court, enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 2,500/- per month, payable from July 2015 and to continue until the marriage of the non-applicant. The Family Court, while enhancing the maintenance, considered not only the respondent’s increased needs but also the financial capacity of the applicant. Although the applicant pleaded financial hardship due to obligations from his second marriage and medical expenses, the Court rightly balanced the interests of the respondent, who is his legitimate daughter, by granting a reasonable enhancement in maintenance. Being aggrieved by the same, hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the learned Family Court ought not have awarded more then double of the amount earlier awarded as maintenance. He also submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered the Family responsibility of 04 children and the second wife of the applicant. The learned Family Court ought to have reasonably enhanced the amount of maintenance looking to the source of income of the applicant and the amount of maintenance enhanced by the concerned Family Court from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 2500/- is unreasonable in the facts of the circumstances of the case. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order dated is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 7. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the concerned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence 4 adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that initially an application filed by the non-applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 15.12.2011, wherein it was directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 700/- per month to the non-applicant till she got married. Being aggrieved by the said order, the learned Family Court granted on lower side, the non-applicant preferred an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for enhancing the maintenance. While deciding the matter, the learned Family Court observed that the applicant, Shahin Parveen, is pursuing a BCA degree, and as per the document marked as (Exhibit P-1), her educational fees are significantly high. The maintenance amount of Rs. 700/- per month is insufficient to meet her basic daily needs. As per Section 3 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, “maintenance” includes provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical treatment. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application, enhanced the maintenance amount of Rs. 700/- to Rs. 2500/-per month as maintenance in favour of non- applicant from July 2015 onwards, Therefore, keeping in view the 5 social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs.2500/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the non-applicant, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal