1 2026:CGHC:17932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 521 of 2026 Vijay Kumar Vaishnav Son of Shri Vedvyas Vaishnav Aged About 41 Years Resident of Juna Bilaspur, Pacharighat, Near Sao Dharmshala, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1. Smt. Maya Vaishnav Wife of Shri Vijay Kumar Vaishnav, Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village Resident Of Arvind Nagar, Near Satbahaniya Mandir Bandhwapara, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Som Vaishnav Son Of Shri Vijay Kumar Vaishnav Aged About 14 Years Minor, Through Natural Gauadian Mother Smt. Maya Vaishnav (Respondent No. 1,), Resident Of Arvind Nagar, Near Satbahaniya Mandir, Bandhwapara, Police Station Sarkanda,tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicants For Applicants : Mr. Shiv Kumar Banjare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.04.2026 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 03.03.2026 passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.670/2023, whereby the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount filed by the non-applicants has PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.04.21 15:01:39 +0530 2 been allowed and enhanced the maintenance amount from 7,500/- per month to Rs. 12,500/-, hence, this revision. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that initially, the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court. Thereafter, the non- applicants filed an application under Section 127 of CrPC before the Family Court Bilaspur, and the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,300/- to Rs.6,000/-. Subsequently, another application under Section 127 of CrPC was filed, and the learned Family Court further enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,500/- and directed the husband to pay Rs.7,500/- vide order dated 17-03-2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.853/2019. Thereafter, the non-applicants again filed an application under Section 127 of CrPC seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.60,000/-. It was alleged therein that the husband is working as a Headmaster and is posted at Government Primary School, Ganiyari, and is receiving a salary of Rs.48,827/- per month. It was further alleged that the husband is also running a photocopy and computer typing centre, as well as a mobile shop, and earning approximately Rs.40,000/- per month from the said businesses. The wife further stated that the husband owns agricultural land and a residential house, from which he earns rental income of Rs.30,000/- per month. The wife further stated in the application that due to the rising cost of living, it has become difficult to sustain. It was also stated that non-applicant No.2 is a school-going child, and substantial expenses are incurred towards books, uniforms, transportation, and other educational needs. The wife also averred that considerable expenditure is being incurred towards medical treatment. 3 3. The applicant/husband filed his reply and denied all the adverse allegations made against him. The applicant specifically denied that he is engaged in any business activities. It was further stated that the wife is working as an advocate and is earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month from her professional work. On these grounds, the applicant prayed for rejection of the application filed under Section 127 of CrPC by the non-applicants. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.12,500/- (Rs.5,000/- for the wife and Rs.7,500/- for the minor child/non-applicant No.2) vide impugned order dated 03-03-2026 (Annexure A-1), which is on the higher side, hence, the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the order dated 03-03-2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the financial position of the applicant/husband. It is respectfully submitted that the wife is practicing as an advocate and is earning a substantial income from her profession. It is further submitted that the wife is also engaged in other work and is earning sufficient income to maintain herself as well as the minor child. The applicant/husband is receiving a monthly salary of only Rs.48,827/-, and it is not feasible for him to bear the enhanced maintenance amount in view of his limited income and other liabilities. The allegations made by the wife that the husband is earning Rs.30,000/- per month from rental income and Rs.40,000/- per month from business activities are false and baseless, as the same have not been proved by any cogent evidence. The applicant/husband has also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, however, the 4 wife has refused to reside with the applicant/husband without any justifiable cause. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti