1 2025:CGHC:27725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 288 of 2019 Jagmohan Singh Gond S/o Shri Dhannu Singh Gond Aged About 58 Years Caste - Gond, Occupation - Ranger In Forest Department, Manendragarh, R/o Village - Gadrakund, Post Office And Police Station - Kelhari, Tahsil - Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sonkunwar Gond W/o Shri Jagmohan Singh Gond Aged About 52 Years Caste - Gond, R/o Village - Bhalour, Post Office, Police Station And Tahsil - Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivendy Pandya, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and the impugned order dated 05/02/2018 passed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District - Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 15/2017 may kindly be quashed and further may kindly be pleased to discharge the applicant from enhanced maintenance amount which is awarded against him in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble court be further pleased to pass any other order or relief in favour of the present applicant as it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of Justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that The applicant and respondent were married as per Hindu rites and lived together as husband and wife. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.), seeking maintenance for herself and her children, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 18/2005. By order dated 03/01/2006, the Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹800/- per month to the respondent. The applicant, while admitting the marriage, denied the remaining allegations and contended that the respondent was quarrelsome and left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason, making her not entitled to maintenance. Later, on 13/02/2017, the respondent filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (Misc. Criminal Case No. 15/2017) seeking enhancement of maintenance, citing increased cost of living and the applicant’s alleged improved financial condition. In reply, the applicant denied the allegations, stating that the respondent was capable of 3 maintaining herself through agriculture and BPL benefits, and further submitted that he had retired as a Forest Guard on 31/05/2017, was not receiving a pension due to departmental proceedings, and had several dependents to support. Despite these submissions, the Family Court, by order dated 05/02/2018, allowed the application and enhanced the maintenance from ₹800/- to ₹4000/-. The applicant, aggrieved by this order, has preferred the present Criminal Revision, challenging it as arbitrary and passed without proper application of mind. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 05/02/2018 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The enhancement of maintenance from ₹800/- to ₹4000/- is unjustified and unreasonable, especially considering the applicant’s current financial condition. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is earning a livelihood by cultivating agricultural land belonging to the applicant, along with her son, and is thus capable of maintaining herself. It also overlooked the fact that the applicant retired as a Forest Guard on 31/05/2017, is not receiving a pension due to departmental proceedings, and has several dependents to support. The impugned order is based on presumptions and ignores the material evidence, witness statements, and submissions made by the applicant. Therefore, the order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the order dated 05/02/2018, enhancing the maintenance amount from ₹800/- to ₹4000/- in favour of the respondent. The said order is just, proper, and in consonance with the objectives of Section 127 Cr.P.C., which allows revision of maintenance in view of changed circumstances. The Court correctly appreciated the fact that the original maintenance amount was fixed in the year 2006, and since then, there has been a substantial increase in the cost of living and essential commodities. The enhancement was necessary to ensure that the respondent and her children are able to meet their basic needs with dignity. The Court also rightly considered the applicant’s past service and earning capacity. The order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and has been passed after due consideration of the material placed on record. Hence, the decision of the Family Court is fair, lawful, and deserves to be upheld. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record of this case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan