1 / 4 2025:CGHC:10087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 275 of 202 5 • Deepkant Yadav @ Golu S/o Rajendra Yadav Aged About 26 Years Occupation Data Entry Operator At The Office Of Chief Executive Engineer Pwd Jagdalpur R/o Behind Chopra Rice Mill Rajeev Gandhi Ward P.S. Bodhghat District - Bastaar (C.G.) ... Applicant VERSUS 1. Smt. Meena Yadav W/o Deepkant Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Ravindranath Tagore Ward Behind Commissioner Office P.S. Bodhghat Tahsil Jagdalpur District - Bastar (C.G.) 2. Prashant Yadav (Minor) S/o Deepkant Yadav Aged About 8 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Smt. Meena Yadav R/o Ravindranath Tagore Ward Behind Commissioner Office P.S. Bodhghat Tahsil Jagdalpur District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Prakriti Deo, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judg e ORDER ON BOARD 28/02/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, application for condonation of delay of 02 days in filing the instant revision. 2. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for applicant and the contents of application, I.A. No. 02/2025 is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. 3. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur, PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 4 District Bastar (C.G.) in Criminal MJC Case No. 90/2021, whereby the Family Court has enhanced the quantum of maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month. Hence, this revision is being filed on the following facts. 4. Facts of this case in nutshell are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 06.06.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. From their wedlock, one child/ Respondent No. 2 was born who is as of now is about 8 years. After some time of marriage, due to some dispute, respondent No. 1 started living separately with her child. Thereafter respondent No. 1 preferred an application under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance from applicant, which was allowed by the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur District Bastar vide order dated 13.12.2019 and total maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- for Respondent No. 1 & Rs. 1,000/- for Respondent No. 2) was granted. Thereafter, on 01.03.2021, respondents preferred an application under Section 127 of CrPC towards enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month which learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar has considered and passed by the impugned order enhancing the amount from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of respondents which is under challenge in this revision. 5. After issuing the notice to the applicant, the applicant has filed reply and denied the all averment pleaded in the application. Learned family Court after examining the witnesses and after recording the evidence and framing issues allowed the maintenance application of the respondents and enhanced the quantum of maintenance amount from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month to respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that impugned order is illegal, invalid, contrary to the law and procedure suffering from illegality and perversity and hence, it is liable to be set-aside. He further contented 3 / 4 that learned Family Court, while enhancing the amount of maintenance to the respondents has failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 1 is an earning lady and is earning Rs. 16,000/- per month by doing a private job of accountancy in Telly and she is capable to maintain herself and child who is 8 years old. She also has purchased a two wheeler valued at Rs. 90,000/- which shows that respondent No. 1 is also an earning hand. She has made wrong averment before the court that she is residing in rented accommodation whereas she is residing in the house of her parents and the entire expenses are being borne by her parents and respondent No. 2 is also studying in Class 6th and is getting free education there under the Right to Education. He further contended that the applicant is working as Data Entry Operation in the Public Works Department and earning Rs. 38,471/- per month as salary, residing with his parents who are old aged sickly persons. Their medication is going on and all the expenses are being incurred by applicant. The maximum earning is expended in doctor, medical, fruits etc. After deducting all the expenses and maintenance to respondents, applicant hardly save any amount from his salary. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 07.12.2024 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.4,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- each respondent), i.e., from Rs.3,000/- to Rs. 7,000/-. 9. The contention of learned counsel for applicant is that the respondent No. 1 is also an earning hand and is earning Rs. 16,000/- approx., applicant 4 / 4 has not produced any documentary evidence regarding the income of respondent No. 1 or that she is doing a private job. On the contrary, it is an admitted fact that applicant is working as Data Entry Operation in Public Works Department, Jagdalpur since October 2018 and is capable of earning regular income every month. A period of 5 years has been elapsed from the date of earlier order dated 23.12.2019 passed in favour of respondents, the Government increases the salary of their employees from time to time by increasing D.A. etc. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that in the present situation after the year 2019, the salary received by the applicant would have increased. Annexure A-2 is the salary slip of applicant showing net salary of Rs. 38,471/- per month which has been accepted by him in the statement. From the date of previous order in the year 2019, it is natural that the prices of the commodities, educational needs would increase and it is also true that the salary of applicant would also increase since then and applicant is having responsibility to maintain his wife and child. 10. From the above findings, the learned Family Court has rightly determined the amount of maintenance and enhanced it to the tune of Rs .4,000/- per month to respondents (Rs. 2,000/- each respondent), total amount of maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month for the respondents, which cannot be said to be on higher side. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.12.2024 passed in Criminal MJC Case No.90/2021 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). 11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) pwn JUDGE