1 2026:CGHC:5351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 226 of 2024 Smt. Latadevi Pandey W/o Shri Ashwani Pandey Aged About 53 Years R/o Padwapara Near New Bridge Mungeli, P.S. Mungeli, Tehsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Ashwani Pandey S/o Markandeya Pandey, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Dullapur, P.S. Pipariya, Tehsil And District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 261/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant resides in Mungeli District and the applicant is completely dependent on the respondent after marriage and the applicant has no source of ir come and is living with her daughter-in-law and grandson. The marriage between the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 applicant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 1986 as per Hindu rights and customs in District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh and after the marriage they both lived together as husband and wife for about seven years and from this marriage they had two children was born after which both the applicant and the respondent have been living separately since 1993 due to their mutual differences. The both the applicant and the respondent are living separately since 1993 due to mutual differences and the responsibility of both the sons of the applicant was on the applicant and since the applicant has no source of income. the applicant has demandeti amount for maintenance. The responsibility of both the children was on the applicant but due to the applicant not having any source of income and her husband not supporting her, the applicant demanded maintenance amount from him and filed a case under Section 125 CrPC against the respondent before the Learned Family Court the case was registered as Miscellaneous case number 30/1999. the Family Court decided the case in favor of the applicant on 28.02.2004 and passed order for the applicant to receive maintenance amount every month from the respondent. The responsibility of both the Childrens was already on the applicant and as the children grew up, the expenses of their education and upbringing also fell on the applicant and since the applicant had no means of earning, the maintenance was required due to which the applicant filed a case against the respondent in the Family Court Mungeli Chhattisgarh, under Section 127 of CrPC and demanded increase in the said amount the Learned Family Court the case was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 26/2018, Wherein the Family Court decided the case in favor of the applicant on 27.12.2019 and 3 passed an order directing the applicant to receive a maintenance amount of Rs 6,000 per month from the respondent in which the applicant is receiving maintenance amount. The applicant had filed an application under Section 127 CrPC in the Learned Family Court Mungeli on 05.08.2023 for increasing the maintenance amount from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 40,000, which has been rejected vide order dated 25.01.2024. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that as the increasing expenses and the applicant being an aged woman, due to which the health of the applicant keeps deteriorating day by day, the applicant is already facing financial burden and she also has the responsibility of her grandson and daughter-in-law, the entire expenditure by the applicant is borne by the amount of maintenance given by her husband which is less at present. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 261/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar