1 2025:CGHC:40429 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 166 of 2024 Smt. Rameshwari Lader W/o Rohit Kumar Aged About 53 Years R/o C/o Late Prannath Ratre, Village And Post Kharod, Tahsil Pamgarh, P.S. Sheorinarayan, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Rohit Kumar Lader S/o Shri Khoobdas Aged About 60 Years R/o Satnam Nagar, Balco, P.S.- Balco, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in MJC No. 296/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for enhancement of maintenance, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant and respondent are husband and wife and on 13/08/2018 the applicant/wife had filed an RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 application under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance with the respondent before the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court vide its order dated 05/01/2019 allowed the maintenance application of the applicant by awarding a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- on the basis of mutual compromise between the parties. On 16/06/2022 the present applicant filed an application under Section 127 of CrPC seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded from the respondent before the learned Family Court. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicants. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant as 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. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is a lady having no source of income at present and respondent is working as Head Master, in the Chhattisgarh Education Department in Pondiuproda, District – Korba, and used to earn sum of Rs. 1,12,608/- per month, but despite the said fact the learned Family Court has enhanced and awarded only Rs. 7,000/- to the applicant as maintenance which is very low and also deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and 3 supports the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in MJC No. 296/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for enhancement of maintenance, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family 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 Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified 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