1 2025:CGHC:40144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1101 of 2023 Kumari Bai Wife Of Sarju Lal, Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Village Pihrid, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharouda, District - Janjgir-Champa, (New District - Sakti), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Sarju Lal Son Of Vidur, Aged About 44 Years Caste Satnami, Occupation Service (Irrigation Department) At Present Resident Of Irrigation Colony, Madanpur, Kharsiya, Police Station And Tahsil Kharsiya, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Basant Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed in the interest of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 justice that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and enhance the amount of maintenance from Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 25000/- per mopnth and modify the order dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that in the present case, the applicant had earlier filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., in which, as per the order passed, the applicant has been receiving a monthly maintenance amount of ₹3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) from the date of the order dated 12.10.2012. The applicant again filed an application under the same provision on 10.07.2015 (Misc. Criminal Case No. 57/15) seeking an enhancement of the maintenance amount. Upon dismissal of that application, she filed Criminal Revision No. 910/16 before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as per the order dated 16.02.2017, she has been receiving ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month from the Non- applicant. The applicant has filed the present application stating that the current maintenance of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month is insufficient in view of the steep rise in prices. She submits that it is not adequate to meet expenses on ration, medicines, clothes, etc., that she suffers from high blood pressure and diabetes, and her monthly medical expenses amount to ₹10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). For ration and other daily needs, she requires ₹15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month, making a total monthly requirement of ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand). She states 3 that the Non-applicant is employed as a Steno-Typist in the Irrigation Department as a public servant and earns a monthly salary of about ₹44,000/- (Rupees forty-four thousand). 4. In his written reply, except for the admitted facts, the non-applicant has denied the remaining averments of the applicant and stated that the applicant runs an agricultural department medicine shop, earning ₹20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) per month. In addition, by cultivating nine acres of agricultural land situated at village Pirda belonging to the applicant, she earns about ₹3.5 lakh annually. The applicant also owns a car, which she rents out, as well as a two- storey pucca house. The Non-applicant states that his monthly salary is ₹28,000/- (Rupees twenty-eight thousand), from which he has to meet the expenses of his own maintenance and that of his minor children, including their medical care and education, which is very difficult. He also states that ₹7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) is deducted monthly towards GPF. On the ground that his income has not increased, the non-applicant prays for dismissal of the applicant’s application. 5. The learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and impugned order and material available on record, passed the order on 24.08.2023, whereby enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.6,000/- per month on the premise that the inflation rate has gone up and therefore, the applicant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits The learned Family Court has not considered the documents regarding the income of the Non- 4 applicant as in the year 2018, the gross salary of the husband was 43,336/- per month. He further submits that the documents regarding the medical treatment of the applicant was also not considered and the amount of Rs. 1000/- was enhanced by the Family Court, which is liable to be enhanced by the Court at least Rs. 15,000/-. He further submits that in the year 2017, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court pleased to enhance the amount of Rs.3000/- to Rs.5000/- and after six years, the learned Family Court enhanced only 1000/-, which is very lower side. The husband himself admitted in his statement that he was receiving Rs.44000/- as a salary per month, which was not considered by the Family Court concerned Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be modified. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and and material available on record, passed the order on 24.08.2023, whereby enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.6,000/- per month on the premise that the inflation rate has gone up and therefore, the applicant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken 5 into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non- applicant and the genuine needs of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the findings recorded by the learned Family Court concerned, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error 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. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal