1 2026:CGHC:5831 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1272 of 2024 Yogeshwar Das Manikpuri S/o Late Laxmandas Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Santoshi Mandir, Bodla, Presently R/o Near Sharawan Doctor's House, Bawapara, Pondi, Chowky Pondi, P.S Bodla, Dist- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Ahilyabai W/o Shri Yogeshwardas Manikpuri Aged About 48 Years R/o Brahmanpara, Bodla , Police Station And Tehsil Bodla, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jugal Kishore Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.151/2023, whereby, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent / wife and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,500/- per month to Rs.8,000/- per month. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent and the applicant were married about 33 years ago as per Hindu rites and have two major sons and two married daughters. By mutual consent, maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month was fixed in proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 11.02.2020. On 12.12.2023, the respondent again filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 20,000/- per month on the ground of rising expenses and inflation, alleging that the applicant is earning Rs. 50,000/- per month as a Head Master. The applicant contested the claim stating financial constraints, home loan liabilities, ill health of his mother, and disputes over ancestral property. However, the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the facts and financial condition of the applicant, passed the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs. 8,000/- per month from Rs. 2,500/-. Hence, the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Learned Family Court, Kabirdham, enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month is arbitrary, unreasonable, and suffers from non- application of mind, as the learned Court failed to consider the deteriorating physical health and limited financial capacity of the 3 applicant. The applicant is a school teacher with substantial financial liabilities, including a housing loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- for which he is required to pay a monthly installment of Rs. 25,842/-, along with other necessary expenses. He further submits that the applicant is on the verge of old age, suffering from ailments such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and depression, and has been left without support due to strained relations with the respondent and major sons. In contrast, the respondent is residing in the matrimonial house, is supported by two earning major sons, and has sufficient means through agricultural income, rental income from her parental property, and benefits under Government welfare schemes, including Mahatari Vandan Yojana and ration facilities. He also submits that the earlier maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month was fixed by mutual consent and continues to be sufficient, particularly when inflation has not substantially altered living costs in the relevant period. The learned Family Court failed to properly evaluate the material facts and circumstances of the case, rendering the impugned order bad in law and liable to be set aside, with liberty reserved to the applicant to raise additional grounds at the time of arguments. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent / wife and enhanced the maintenance 4 amount from Rs.2,500/- per month to Rs.8,000/- per month, holding that due to lapse of time, increase in cost of living, and the earning capacity of the applicant–husband as a government school teacher drawing a monthly salary of about Rs. 50,140/-, the respondent was entitled to enhancement of maintenance so as to enable her to live with dignity and in parity with the standard of living of the applicant. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil