1 2025:CGHC:57338 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1131 of 2024 1 - Saraswati Sahu W/o Amit Kumar Sahu, Aged About 33 Years R/o M.G. Road Ajirma, Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Prachi Sahu D/o Amit Kumar Sahu, Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Saraswati Sahu, Applicant No.1, R/o M.G. Road Ajirma, Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Amit Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shiv Prasad Sahu, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village-Bilaspur, Post-Tikarapara, Police Station And Tahsil-Batauli, District-Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been 昀椀led by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and further be pleased to set-aside the order dated 07/08/2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), in Cr.M.J.C. Case No. 170/2022, and applicant may be permitted to adduce the evidence, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicants, being the wife and minor daughter of the respondent, 昀椀led an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) seeking enhancement of the maintenance earlier awarded in Cr.M.J.C. Case No. 112/2013, wherein by order dated 18.08.2015 the applicant No.1 was granted Rs.1,000/- per month and applicant No.2 was granted Rs.500/- per month. It was submitted that the said award was made nearly ten years ago, that the applicants have no independent source of income, and that due to present-day in昀氀ation the earlier amount is wholly insu昀케cient. It was further contended that at the time of the earlier order, the respondent’s income from his daily-needs shop and agricultural land had not been considered, and that his income has now substantially increased, entitling the applicants to a standard of living commensurate with his present earnings. The applicants also submitted that applicant No.2, who was very young when the order was passed, is now aged 13 years and her educational, nutritional, medical, and other essential expenses have signi昀椀cantly increased. However, by the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure A/1), 3 the Family Court rejected the prayer of applicant No.1 in entirety and only partly allowed the prayer of applicant No.2 by enhancing her maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order of the Family Court is perverse, illegal, and unsustainable as the earlier maintenance was 昀椀xed in 2013, and due to the drastic rise in prices and change in minimum wages, the applicants cannot meet their present needs with an amount determined eleven years ago. It is urged that the Family Court erred in assuming that applicant No.1 has income from inherited agricultural land without any revenue record or evidence produced by the respondent to support such a 昀椀nding. It is further submitted that the Court’s reliance on a photograph (Ex.D-2) to presume an illicit relationship and deny enhancement to applicant No.1 is wholly erroneous, especially when electronic evidence without a mandatory certi昀椀cate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is inadmissible. Counsel contends that the Family Court wrongly observed that applicant No.1 did not challenge the allegation of second marriage, whereas the cross-examination of the husband clearly re昀氀ects a challenge to such false accusations. It is further argued that applicant No.2, a minor school-going daughter residing with applicant No.1, has increasing educational and essential expenses that cannot be met with the meagre amount earlier 4 awarded, and even the partial enhancement granted to her is insu昀케cient. Hence, the refusal to enhance maintenance for applicant No.1 and the inadequate enhancement for applicant No.2 amounts to grave injustice and calls for appropriate modi昀椀cation of the allowance. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicants, being the wife and minor daughter of the respondent, 昀椀led an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) seeking enhancement of the maintenance earlier awarded in Cr.M.J.C. Case No. 112/2013, wherein by order dated 18.08.2015 the applicant No.1 was granted Rs.1,000/- and applicant No.2 was granted Rs.500/- per month. After considering the pleadings, evidence, and the material placed on record, the learned Family Court rightly held that no su昀케cient change in circumstances had been established to justify enhancement of maintenance in favour of applicant No.1, particularly in the absence of any proof regarding her lack of income or dependency. The Court further found that only applicant No.2, who had grown in age and whose educational and essential 5 expenses had increased, demonstrated a justi昀椀ed requirement for enhancement. Accordingly, by a reasoned order dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure A/1), the Family Court rejected the claim of applicant No.1 and partly allowed the application by enhancing the maintenance of applicant No.2 from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/- per month, which determination is based on proper appreciation of facts. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 昀椀nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan