1 2026:CGHC:7414 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1464 of 2024 Sevti Bai W/o Jaleshwar Verma, Aged About 28 Years R/o Bodhaikunda, Present Address - Sukhatal, Police Station And Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Jaleshwar S/o Gambhir Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Bodhaikunda, Police Station - Pipariya, Tahsil - Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. S.P.Sannat, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. S.P.Sannat, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount awarded in the order dated 20-09-2024 (Annexure A-1) from Rs. 4500/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month in the application filed before the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabairdham (C.G.), in the interest of justice. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that it is an undisputed fact that earlier the applicant was awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the non-applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, whereby the maintenance amount was enhanced by Rs. 300/-, and the learned Family Court passed an order granting maintenance of Rs. 3,300/- per month vide order dated 08.07.2016. The applicant thereafter preferred a criminal revision before a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court seeking enhancement of maintenance and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.01.2019 passed in CRR No. 1181/2016, enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 4,000/- per month in place of Rs. 3,300/-. The applicant again filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking further enhancement of the maintenance amount. It was contended by the applicant that after passing of the order dated 16.01.2019, there has been a steep rise in the prices of essential commodities, clothing, ration, medicines, and other daily necessities. The applicant is facing great difÏculty in maintaining herself, and it is not possible for her to survive on Rs. 4,000/- per month. Accordingly, she prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the non-applicant. The applicant further contended that the non-applicant is a resourceful and financially sound person. He owns 14 acres of double-cropped irrigated agricultural land and cultivates paddy, wheat, sugarcane, and pulses, earning an annual income of approximately Rs. 10,00,000/-. The non-applicant also owns a 3 tractor, trolley, thresher machine, and other agricultural equipment. He allegedly earns an additional annual income of Rs. 4,00,000/- by transporting crops of other farmers through his tractor, Rs. 2,00,000/- per year from the thresher machine, and Rs. 1,00,000/- per year by selling water from his tube-well to other farmers. 4. The non-applicant filed his reply denying all the allegations. He stated that the applicant is receiving a pension of Rs. 500/- as an abandoned woman and also receives 35 kilograms of rice per month from the Food Department, and is thus maintaining herself adequately with the awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month. He further contended that if the maintenance amount is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per month, he would be unable to pay the same, as he is merely an agricultural labourer. He claimed to own only 2.92 acres of agricultural land, which is unirrigated. He further stated that his tube-well is about 15 years old and has major defects. According to him, he cultivates paddy on one acre, sugarcane on another acre, and the remaining 0.50 acre is wasteland. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of her application. 5. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure-A1), enhanced the maintenance by an amount of Rs. 500/- per month, making the total maintenance Rs. 4,500/- per month. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the maintenance amount of Rs. 4,500/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court is grossly inadequate and insufÏcient for the survival of the 4 applicant and the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of material facts. The applicant is a housewife with no independent source of income and is physically weak, unable to undertake labour work or engage in any business for her livelihood. She is residing with her aged mother, who is also not earning, and the applicant is not receiving any pension as an abandoned woman. The learned Family Court failed to consider the steep rise in prices of essential commodities, clothing, ration, medicines, and other daily necessities, due to which it is impossible for the applicant to maintain herself within the limit of Rs. 4,500/- per month. On the other hand, the non- applicant is financially well placed, cultivating paddy, wheat, sugarcane, and pulses on 14 acres of double-cropped irrigated agricultural land and earning approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- per annum. He also owns a tractor, trolley, thresher machine, and other agricultural equipment, earning additional income of about Rs. 4,00,000/- annually from transportation of crops, Rs. 2,00,000/- from the thresher machine, and Rs. 1,00,000/- per year from selling water through a tube-well, and is thus maintaining a good standard of living. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the financial capacity of the non-applicant and the helpless condition of the applicant, resulting in grant of a meagre amount which is wholly insufÏcient and liable to be suitably enhanced. 7. On the other hand, the non-applicant submits that the concerned 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 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering the earlier orders of maintenance, the pleadings of both parties and the material available on record, partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and enhanced the maintenance amount by Rs. 500/- per month, thereby fixing the total maintenance at Rs. 4,500/- per month. The Family Court took into account the rival claims regarding the income of the non-applicant, the alleged agricultural holdings and the financial condition of both parties, and arrived at a conclusion that marginal enhancement was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the learned Family Court has exercised its discretion judiciously while assessing the material placed before it. The findings recorded are based on appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal