1 2025:CGHC:38906 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 161 of 2023 Smt. Manmati W/o Shri Kulan Ram Alias Kulwant Aged About 55 Years Caste Kanwar Occupation-Nil R/o Village Sarmana, Tahsil Batauli, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Kulan Ram Painkra Alias Kulwant S/o Upas Ram Painkara Aged About 45 Years Occupation- Head Master, R/o Village Basapara, Block- Mainpat, Post Devgarh, Police Station Sitapur Tahsil Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.199/2014, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 application under Section 127 CrPC filed by the applicant and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.1,500/- per month to 4,000/- per month in favour of the applicant / wife. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant / wife filed an application under Section 127 of the CrPC, seeking enhancement of maintenance from her husband / respondent. The maintenance amount had been previously set at Rs. 500/- and was later increased to Rs. 1500/- in 2013. Manmati claimed that due to the increased cost of living, Rs. 1500 is insufficient, and requested an enhancement to Rs. 10,000 per month, citing her husband's substantial income as a headmaster. However, her husband disputed this, stating he doesn't work as a headmaster and has to support his parents, while Manmati works at an Anganwadi Kendra and receives rations. The Family Court partially allowed her application by increasing the maintenance to Rs. 4000/- per month. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the Family Court did not properly assess the husband's income, which is Rs. 65,296/- per month as a headmaster, as evidenced by his pay slip (Ex.P1, Annexure A/2). Further, the Court overlooked the applicant's hardships in surviving on Rs. 1500/- per month since 2013. He further submits that the Court ignored the husband's admission of his relationship with the applicant and his second marriage with two children, while the applicant receives only Rs. 1500/- as maintenance. He also submits that the enhancement to Rs. 4000/- 3 is insufficient, and the husband is obligated to provide adequate maintenance. The applicant's request for Rs. 10,000/- per month is justified considering the husband's net salary. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside and the maintenance amount be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month, as preyed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order and the findings recorded by the Family Court, it is evident that the Court has duly considered the pleadings and material evidence adduced by both parties. The Family Court has taken into account the fact that the respondent/husband is employed as a Headmaster and draws a salary of approximately Rs.65,000/- per month. At the same time, the Court has also noted that the respondent has remarried and is bearing the responsibility of maintaining his second wife and their three children. The contention of the respondent regarding the applicant’s alleged employment as an Anganwadi Sahayika was found to be unsubstantiated. In light of the rising cost of living and the needs of the applicant, the Family Court has rightly exercised 4 its discretion in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. The enhancement appears just, reasonable, and balanced, keeping in view the respective financial positions and responsibilities of both parties, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil