1 2026:CGHC:1439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 27 of 2026 Anant Kothari S/o Shri Kejuram Kothari Aged About 40 Years (Present Age 46 Years), R/o Village Kathiya (Ranka), Tahsil Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) Presently Posted At Police Station Saja Tahsil Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Sangeeta Kothari W/o Shri Anant Kothari Aged About 38 Years R/o Beside Agrawal Typing, Ward No. 7, Sadar Road Gobara Navapara, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Prachi Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09 /01/2026 1. Heard Ms. Prachi Diwan, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the instant criminal revision. 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.302/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and enhanced the maintenance amount awarded to the respondent from Rs.6,500/- per month to Rs.7,500/- per month. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent–wife filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (District Raipur) seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount payable by the applicant–husband. It is an admitted fact that earlier, the learned Family Court had granted maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month in favour of the respondent. Subsequently, by order dated 28.03.2019, the said amount was enhanced from Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 6,500/- per month. In the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., the respondent pleaded that the cost of living had substantially increased and that Rs. 6,500/- per month was insufficient for her livelihood. She claimed that she had no independent source of income, her health condition was not good, and that the applicant was working as a T.I. in the Police Department, earning about Rs. 80,000/- per month, and was 3 also possessed of house property and agricultural land. On these grounds, she sought enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. The applicant filed his written statement opposing the application. He pleaded that he was working as a T.I. in the Police Department and earning only about Rs. 35,000/- per month. He further contended that the respondent was physically fit, owned a house at Gobara Navapara, Sadar Road, and was running a daily shop/general store, earning approximately Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month. It was also stated that the parties were divorced, the applicant had two children from his second marriage, the entire responsibility of maintaining them and his aged mother was upon him, and that he had taken a loan of Rs. 4,75,000/- for the treatment of his father. He further submitted that he was already paying Rs. 6,500/- per month as maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the application. After hearing the submissions of both parties and considering the material available on record, the learned Family Court, by order dated 13.08.2025, partly allowed the application and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 7,500/- per month in favour of the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order, the learned Family Court has erroneously enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 7,500/- per month in favour of the respondent without any material or cogent evidence on record to justify such enhancement. The learned Court failed to properly assess the actual income and financial capacity of the applicant while determining the enhanced maintenance amount. She further 4 submits that the learned Family Court committed a grave error in computing the maintenance amount by ignoring the fact that the respondent is physically fit, educated, and financially independent, as she owns a house at Gobara Navapara, Sadar Road, and is running a daily shop/general store, earning about Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month. The Court further failed to consider that the respondent is also receiving Rs. 1,000/- per month under the Mahtari Vandan Yojna, and had admitted that she stays at the shop during her free time, yet no documentary proof of the applicant’s alleged higher income was produced. She also submits that the learned Family Court also failed to appreciate that the applicant has substantial financial liabilities, including the responsibility of maintaining two minor children from his second marriage and his aged mother, who is dependent upon him. The applicant is the sole earning member of the family and has also incurred a loan of Rs. 4,75,000/- for the medical treatment of his father. Despite these material facts, the learned Family Court ignored the applicant’s liabilities and unjustly enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 7,500/- per month. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and enhanced the maintenance amount awarded to the respondent from Rs.6,500/- per month to 5 Rs.7,500/- per month observing the overall appreciation of the evidence and material on record, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that since the year 2019 there has been a rise in the cost of living as well as an increase in the salary of the applicant, making the earlier maintenance amount insufficient for the respondent. However, as the respondent failed to produce sufficient material to justify enhancement to Rs. 15,000/- per month, the Court found it appropriate to partly allow the application and enhanced the maintenance amount as aforementioned, holding the said enhancement to be just and reasonable. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil