1 2025:CGHC:6677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 164 of 2025 1 - Purnima Lahre W/o Indrapa Lahre Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Dalpurva, Post- Kishungarh, Tahsil- Pandaria, District- Kabirdham, C.G. At Present Resident Of Village - Lalpur, Police Station - Fasterpur, Tahsil- Fasterpur, District Mungeli, C.G. 2 - Ku. Bhavika Lahre D/o Indrapal Aged About 2 Years And 06 Months (Now 4 Years), Minor, Represented Through Mother Purnima Lahre Wife Of Indrapal Lahre, R/o Village- Dalpurva, Post- Kishungarh, Tahsil- Pandaria, District- Kabirdham, C.G. At Present Resident Of Village - Lalpur, Police Station - Fasterpur, Tahsil- Fasterpur, District Mungeli, C.G. --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - Indrapal Lahre S/o Late Bhagatram Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Dalpurva, Post- Kishungarh, Tahsil- Pandaria, District- Kabirdham, C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rohan Patnaik on behalf of Mr. Resham Lal Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act read with Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 130/2024 by the 2 learned Family Court, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.). 2. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant no. 1 is legally wedded wife of non-applicant and their marriage was performed in the year 2021 and applicant no. 2 was born from the wedlock of applicant no. 1 and non-applicant. After some time of marriage, the non-applicant used to consume liquor and beat the applicant no. 1. The non-applicant and other family members pressurized the applicant no. 1 to bring Rs. 2,00,000/- from her father, but as the said demand could not be fulfilled, therefore, on 02.07.2023 the non-applicant and other family members beaten the appliant and ousted her from the house. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant no.1 has to meet expenses for food, medical expenses, house rent, ration, etc. Similarly, applicant no. 2 requires school fees, uniform, shoes, tuition fees, etc. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of record shows that the respondent is working as Data Entry Operator and is having an agricultural land. The learned Judge, Family Court vide its order dated 08.01.2025 has awarded Rs. 3000/- to applicant no. 1(wife) and Rs. 1200/- to applicant no. 2(minor daughter). Learned counsel for the applicants prays for enhancement in the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court. 3 6. Therefore, considering facts of the case and looking to the the price index which is prevailing in the society and hike in value of the commodities and nature of job of the respondent, it is directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month to applicant no. 1 instead of Rs.3,000/- and Rs. 2000/- per month to applicant no. 2 instead of Rs. 1200/-, in total Rs. 5500/- per month to the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is partly allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima