1 2025:CGHC:28167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 223 of 2019 1 - Smt. Rajeshwari Nishad W/o Sunil Kumar Nishad, aged about 28 years, R/o Shivnagar Basantpur Ward No. 38, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mayank Nishad S/o Sunil Kumar Nishad Aged About 4 Years (Minor), Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajeshwari Nishad W/o Sunil Kumar Nishad, R/o Shivnagar Basantpur Ward No. 38, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Sunil Kumar Nishad S/o Punit Kumar, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Singarpur, Post Faradfod, Police Station Devribangal, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Chouhan, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No.55/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.28 17:26:22 +0530 2 application filed by the applicants under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of amount of maintenance which was granted vide order dated 07.11.2015 in Misc. Cr. Case No.124/2013. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 07.11.2015, an order of maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month was passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 124/13. Applicant No. 2 – Mayank Nishad, the minor son of applicant No. 1 – Smt. Rajeshwari Nishad, has grown up and as such he has been getting primary education studying in English medium school; wherefore applicants have been facing a lot of expenses due to higher rates of materials to meet to expenses of minor applicant no. 2. Even otherwise purchasing rates of all short of materials have been going up day to day life. The averments showing earning capacity of non-applicants, applicants filed u/s 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for enhancement of maintenance already awarded Rs. 2500/- per month to the extent of Rs. 5000/- per month. Denying the contents of application, non- applicant submitted the reply claiming for dismissal of applicant's application. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court rejected the application filed by the applicants. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is invalid, improper, unlawful, contrary to law and procedure and has been suffering from illegality and perversity and as such it is neither tenable nor sustainable in the eyes of law, else it deserves to be set- 3 aside by the Hon'ble Court under Hon'ble Court's revisional jurisdiction. It is further stated that the finding arrived at by the learned Family Court is based on unwarranted presumptive approach of the learned court which is unsustainable and is prayed to be set-aside. Further, the learned Family Court has failed to see that rise in purchase prices of daily needs of required goods and materials to pull on livelihood and to meet the educational expenses of the applicant no. 2 which is going up day to day, further, applicants have been facing great crisis in their livelihood and in meeting educational expenses as required for applicant no. 2. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the non-applicant has admitted in his cross- examination that he works as a driver. Therefore, the non-applicant is considered to have sufficient means of income, but the pre-determined maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- received by the applicant No.1 appears to be sufficient at present. Therefore, the non-applicant is not entitled to increase the amount of maintenance. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned 4 Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let the certified of the this order as well as original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti