1 2025:CGHC:7578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 204 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sushila Joshi W/o Khilawan Joshi Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Umarpoti, Police Station- Utai, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Diksha Joshi D/o Khilawan Joshi Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Her Present Mother Smt. Sushila Joshi, W/o Khilawan Joshi, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village- Umarpoti, Police Station- Utai, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Khilawan Joshi S/o Babulal Joshi Aged About 41 Years R/o Village - Devri (Ka), Police Station And Tehsil Gunderdehi, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 12/02/2025 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the 2 order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 57/2023, whereby the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant, hence this revision is being filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the marriage of the applicant and non- applicant took place on 01.07.2009 as per the Hindu customs. The applicant no. 2 is daughter of applicant no. 1 and the non-applicant. It is alleged that just after marriage the husband and his family member used to torture the applicant for demand of dowry and for other things and when she delivered girl child nobody was happy in her matrimonial house and therefore they kicked out the applicant and since then they are residing in parents house of applicant no. 1. It is submitted by the applicant no. 1 that she is working as Assistant in Aangan Badi and she is earning only Rs. 3200/- per month and is not sufficient for maintenance for herself and her daughter. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that while granting amount of maintenance, the learned Family Court has not considered the income of non-applicant properly and granted less maintenance to the applicant. The non-applicant is working as PT Teacher in Government School Chaural and is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicants and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after 3 taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant no. 2. 6. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that applicant no. 1/wife is earning Rs. 3200/- per month which is not sufficient, she is residing in her parental home is struggling to support herself and her minor daughter, hence, the Family Court granted the maintenance to the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC, non-applicant is husband of applicant and has to pay the said maintenance amount. 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.5,000/- per month to the applicant no. 2 instead of Rs.3,000/-. 7. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima