1 2026:CGHC:7384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 231 of 2022 1. Smt. Sushma Verma W/o Balram Kumar Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village -Padmi, Tahsil and PS-Thankhamariya, District- Bemetara C.G. 2. Kumari, Sakshi Verma, D/o Balaram Kumar Verma Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Sushma Verma R/o Village -Padmi, Tahsil and PS-Thankhamariya, District- Bemetara C.G. ... Applicants versus Balram Kumar Verma S/o Adhar Verma, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Beeja, Tehsil Saja, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No.155/2021, whereby the applicants for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. has been partly allowed by the learned Family Court and directed the husband/respondent to pay Rs. 4,000/- to applicant No.2 and rejected the application with respect to applicant No.1/wife. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.11 12:39:11 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant No.1 and respondent are wife and husband. They were living peacefully, and two daughters were born out of the marriage. Subsequently, the applicant No.1-wife started living separately and filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance. The said application was allowed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 27.02.2020 in MJC No. 151/2013, granting Rs. 5,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No. 2. Thereafter, the applicants filed an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement of maintenance on account of increased school fees of applicant No. 2 and the other daughter, as well as the rise in the cost of daily necessities. The applicants sought enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 20,000/- per month due to the change in circumstances. By order dated 12.11.2021, the learned Family Court observed from the salary slip that the respondent was earning Rs. 34,768/- per month and enhanced the maintenance of applicant No. 2 to Rs. 4,000/- per month on account of increased school fees. However, the court did not enhance the maintenance for applicant No. 1, without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. The learned Family Court erred in not properly considering the evidence on record. The impugned order is erroneous, illegal, and contrary to law, hence, the present revision is preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in not properly considering the documents produced by the applicants regarding the increase in school fees of the minor daughter and other related expenses. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife is entitled to enhancement of maintenance in view of the substantial rise in day-to-day expenses. The minor daughters are now in their teenage years and require additional financial support; 3 therefore, enhancement of maintenance for the wife was also justified. The learned Family Court erred in holding that applicant No. 1 is not entitled to maintenance on the ground that she may claim a share in her father’s property. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondent to establish the extent of agricultural land allegedly held by the wife’s family or their liabilities. The Family Court further failed to properly consider the actual salary drawn by the respondent-husband while deciding the application for enhancement. The Family Court did not adequately appreciate that the wife, who bears the responsibility of maintaining two minor daughters, is entitled to enhanced maintenance due to increased living expenses. The impugned order was passed without due consideration of the documents adduced by the applicants demonstrating the increase in school fees and other expenditures. The learned Family Court failed to properly evaluate the documentary evidence of the applicants and instead relied upon the bald and unsubstantiated statements of the respondent while passing the impugned order. The applicants seek liberty to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is evident that the maintenance amount requires enhancement. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband 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, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let the certified of the this order as well as original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti