1 2025:CGHC:45849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 248 of 2020 Smt. Rajlaxmi Swarnakar W/o Shri Shatrudhan Swarnkar Aged About 62 Years R/o Through Smt. Devki Tripathi, Beside Dr. Rajeshwari Tripathi Clinic, Bramha Road, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Shatrudhan Prasad Swarnkar S/o Late Rambali Aged About 65 Years Occupation Business, Permanent R/o Sadar Road, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh Present R/o Amlidih, Maruti Sujuki Colony, A-24, Vip Road, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble out may kindly be pleased to modify the impugned order dated 14.01.2020, passed by the court of Judge, Family Court, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), presiding officer Shri Thomas Ekka, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 123/2017, in the interest of justice and enhance the maintenance amount suitably, in the ends of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance previously granted, claiming that due to rising market prices and increased needs, the existing maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month required to be enhanced to Rs.7,000/- per month. The learned Family Court, after considering the application, partly allowed the same and enhanced the maintenance by only Rs.500/-, thereby directing the respondent to pay a total of Rs.2,000/- per month to the applicant. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance, the applicant preferred the present criminal revision, contending that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the relevant facts, including the increased expenses and requirements of the applicant, and also did not adequately consider the financial position and earning capacity of the respondent. The applicant submits that the minimal enhancement of Rs.500/- is unjust, illegal, and contrary to law, and therefore seeks an appropriate revision of the maintenance amount to Rs.7,000/- per month. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is partly contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and suffers from material irregularity. The learned Family Court has failed to 3 properly appreciate and consider the submissions and contentions of the applicant, particularly regarding the increased needs and present-day market value of essential commodities. While the applicant sought enhancement of the maintenance amount to Rs.7,000/- per month in view of rising expenses and requirements, the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance by only Rs.500/-, directing the respondent to pay a total of Rs.2,000/- per month. Such minimal enhancement is arbitrary, inadequate, and does not reflect the reasonable needs of the applicant, nor does it consider the financial position and capacity of the respondent to pay a higher amount. In light of the above, the maintenance amount granted by the learned Family Court is clearly insufficient and deserves to be appropriately enhanced to Rs.7,000/- per month. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering the application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C., has rightly exercised its discretion in partly allowing the petition and enhancing the maintenance from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/- per month. The Court carefully examined the pleadings, evidence, and financial position of both parties, including the earning capacity of the respondent and the needs of the applicant. While the applicant claimed enhancement to Rs.7,000/- per month on account of rising market prices, the Court, applying its judicial discretion, determined a reasonable and fair 4 increase that would ensure the sustenance of the applicant without imposing an undue burden on the respondent. The learned Family Court acted in accordance with law, properly considered all relevant factors, and arrived at a balanced and just order that protects the interest of the applicant while keeping in view the financial limitations of the respondent. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Office is directed to copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within 48 hours for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan