1 2025:CGHC:8227 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 221 of 2025 1 - Smt. Dhanmat Bai W/o Rajkumar Banjara Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Govindpur, Police Station- Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) At Present R/o Village- Jhopadpatti, Deendayal Colony, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Rajkumar Banjara S/o Maniram Banjara Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Govindpur, Police Station- Lorami, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Resham Lal Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17/02/2025 1. The present revision is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act read with Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 2 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 139/2023 by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, District-Mungeli (C.G.). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Learned Family Court for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15000/- per month stating therein that her marriage was performed with Mahendra Banjare 13 years ago and out of their wedlock, three children were born. After 6 years of marriage, the husband of applicant namely Mahendra Banjare died and after his death, the children are living with their grandfather and grandmother. After 1 year of death of her husband, the marriage of the applicant was performed with the respondent who is the cousin brother of applicant’s husband namely Mahendra Banjare and since then the applicant and non- applicant were living together as husband and wife. After living for sometime together, the respondent left the applicant and came to Bilaspur where he kept other lady as concubine and he is not giving single penny towards maintenance of applicant. The respondent is working as Driver and he is earning Rs. 15000/- per month. The non-applicant is also holding 13 acres of agricultural lands and one tractor thereby getting income of Rs. 5 lakhs per annum one tractor and he is also operation Ita Bhatta thereby earning Rs. 1 lakh per annum, whereas the applicant is a household lady and she has no source of income, therefore he filed application for grant of maintenance. After serving notice, the respondent filed reply, whereby denied the allegations, but 3 subsequently the respondent remained absent before the learned Family Court, therefore the learned Family Court has proceeded ex-parte against the non-applicant. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned order dated 23.01.2025 the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of applicant. 3. After considering the application and reply filed by both the parties and the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned family Court vide its order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure A-1) granted amount of Rs. 3000/- per month to the applicant, hence this revision is being filed for enhancement of maintenance amount. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is working as Driver and he used to earn Rs. 15000/- per month. The respondent is also holding 13 acres of agricultural land and one tractor and getting income of Rs. 5 lakhs per annum and is also operating Ita Bhatta thereby earning Rs. 1 lakh per annum. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. 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 taking into consideration, the learned Family 4 Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant. 7. From perusal of records it is evident that the respondent has multiple source of income, i.e, labour, agricultural work, and is working as a driver. The learned Family Judge has awarded maintenance of Rs. 3000/- in favour of the applicant. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that applicant/wife has no high source of income and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court granted the maintenance to the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC, non-applicant is husband of applicant and it is his duty to maintain his legally wedded wife. 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 the applicant instead of Rs.3,000/-. 8. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima