1 2025:CGHC:54183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1336 of 2025 1 - Minor Akshat Sinha Through Its Mother Smt. Prity Sinha Aged About 10 Years R/o Block Colony, Near Bijali OfÏce, Abhanpur Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur, C.G. 2 - Smt. Prity Sinha W/o Mithilesh Sinha Aged About 34 Years R/o Block Colony, Near Bijali OfÏce, Abhanpur Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Mithilesh Sinha S/o Late Sheshnarayan Sinha Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Sirri, Badpara, P.S. Birejhar, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari, C.G. Other Address Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Village Nari, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari, C.G. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.11.2025 1. By way of this revision petition, the applicants prayed for following reliefs:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call for the records of the courts below and set aside the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 family court so far as it relates to partial refusal of claim of the petitioners and allowed the application filed by the petitioners in toto before the family court by allowing instant revision, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, it is an admitted fact that in Cr. M.J.C. Case No. 346/16, by order dated 07.05.2019, the Family Court directed that applicant No. 01 be paid 1,000/- rupees and applicant No. 02 be paid 2,500/- rupees, totaling 3,500/- rupees per month as maintenance from the non-applicant. The sum and substance of the application is that applicant No. 01 is presently studying in Class II at New Dream India School, Abhanpur. His annual school fee is 14,500/- rupees, and the transportation cost for commuting to school is 600/- rupees per month, amounting to 6,000/- rupees annually. Applicant No. 01 incurs approximately 4,000/- rupees per month towards physical ailments and minor medical treatment. The non-applicant is not regularly paying the maintenance amount. The applicants further stated that the non-applicant left applicant No. 02 at her parental home in the year 2014, and since then she has been residing there with her son out of compulsion. The non-applicant has illegally married another woman named Bhuneswari Sinha by performing the ritual of giving bangles. Applicant No. 02 is dependent on her widowed mother and brother for sustenance. The cost of living has risen sharply. The applicants are unable to maintain themselves. The non-applicant is employed as a Class-5B Peon at the District Cooperative Central Bank, Nari Branch, District Dhamtari, and 3 earns a monthly salary of approximately 40,000/- rupees. Therefore, it is requested that the application be allowed and the maintenance amount be enhanced, keeping in view the income of the non- applicant, along with a lump-sum litigation cost of 15,000 rupees. 3. In his reply, the non-applicant has denied all the statements except the admitted facts. According to the non-applicant, he is willing to provide education to applicant No. 01 according to his financial condition. He has never harassed applicant No. 02. Applicant No. 02 is earning income on her own, and is therefore capable of maintaining herself and their son. The non-applicant received the post of Peon on compassionate appointment after his father’s death. At present, the financial condition of his family has weakened. The non-applicant further states that he has the responsibility of his elderly mother, whose care, health expenses, and other duties he must bear. The income he receives is insufÏcient for the sustenance of the family. Applicant No. 02 is an educated and healthy woman. She is doing a job and earns approximately 15,000/- to 20,000/- rupees per month. The applicants are not facing any financial problems. Therefore, it is requested that the application submitted by the applicants be dismissed with costs. 4. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court decided the matter and passed the order dated 07.05.2019, granted maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to Applicant No. 1/son and Rs. 2,500/- per month to Non-applicant No. 2 (wife) total 3500/- per month towards maintenance. In view of the 4 rising cost of living and continuous inflation, the applicants preferred an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C before the Family Court concerned seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. After hearing both sides, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 25.07.2025, partly allowed the application and enhanced the total maintenance amount from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of the applicants and further directed the applicant to bear Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the impugned order passed by learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, based on no evidence and therefore liable to be set-aside so far as it relates to refusal of partial claim of the applicants. The learned Family Court committed an error by not considering the fact that the even as per admission of the non-applicant, his salary is Rs. 20,264/- therefore committed an error by allowing application of the applicants in part by enhancing Rs. 2000/- only in favour of both the applicants. The learned Family Court ought to have seen that presently the Non-applicant is getting about Rs. 37000/- per month as salary and therefore entire application is to be allowed by suitably enhancing the amount of the maintenance looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court had erred in not considering the fact that the non-applicant is living with another lady and therefore applicants fully eligible to maintenance from the non-applicant. The learned Family Court has not assigned any reasons on the basis of which the application of the applicants 5 have been allowed in part, which is mandatory requirement of law and therefore impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of Law. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant No.2 along with her son applicant No.1 before the learned Family Court, seeking enhancement in maintenance amount with the intent that the learned Family Court was awarded a very meager amount, which is neither reasonable nor in proportion to the rising cost of living and their genuine needs. After hearing both the parties, considering the overall circumstances of the case, the application filed by the applicants is partly allowed and the non-applicant is directed to pay the applicant No.1/son, Minor Akshat Sinha — ₹2000/- (Rupees two thousand) per month and and to applicant No.2/wife, Smt Prity Sinha — ₹4000/- (Rupees four thousand) per month, effective from the date of order and further ordered that Non-applicant shall bear litigation expenses of Rs. 1000/-. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken 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 6 judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal