1 2026:CGHC:965 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 14 of 2026 1 - Smt. Kalpana Dewangan W/o Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 44 Years R/o Dewangan Mohalla Pachripara, Ward No. 09, District Janjgir Champa C.G. 2 - Kumari Rashi Dewangan, D/o Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 20 Years R/o Dewangan Mohalla Pachripara, Ward No. 09, District Janjgir Champa C.G. ... Applicants versus Rajendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Mannulal, Aged About 49 Years R/o Sinhpur Road, Near Old Ice Factory Shahdol, Behind K.C. Das, Sardar Dairy Farm, Police Station Shahdol, Shahdol (M.P.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2025, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 194/2024, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the revisionist is the wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 21.02.2003 in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Out of the wedlock, a daughter, Rashi Devangan, was born. Due to alleged harassment by the respondent, matrimonial disputes arose, and maintenance proceedings were earlier initiated, wherein by order dated 22.05.2012 passed in Case No. 152/11, the learned Court directed payment of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.500/- per month to the daughter, which, according to the revisionist, has not been regularly paid. It is contended that owing to rising in>ation, the revisionist and her daughter are facing severe 7nancial hardship, while the respondent is alleged to be a grain merchant and wholesaler, owning immovable property and agricultural land, and earning substantial income, on the basis of which enhancement of maintenance to Rs.17,000/- per month has been sought. On the other hand, the respondent, in his reply, has denied the allegations, asserting that the revisionist is supported by her family members, that the daughter is now major and capable of earning, and that he himself is unemployed and dependent upon his father’s pension for meeting medical and household expenses. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and relevant provisions of law, passed the impugned order, which is stated to be illegal and unreasonable. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure R/1) is bad in law, perverse, and liable to be set aside, as the learned Court below has failed to properly 3 appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is submitted that the applicants examined Smt. Kalpana Devangan (PW-1) and Rashi Devangan (PW-2), whereas the non-applicant examined himself as AW-1 and another witness as AW-2. PW-1 has categorically stated that due to rising in>ation, she is facing extreme 7nancial hardship and is deprived of basic necessities, and that the non-applicant is a person of means, having income from business, agricultural land, and rental property. On the contrary, the non-applicant, while claiming unemployment, admitted in cross- examination that he owns ancestral property and had earlier undertaken contracting work, and no medical evidence was produced to establish any physical or mental incapacity to earn. It is further submitted that although the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce, there is no evidence of remarriage of applicant No.1. While mere passage of time may not automatically justify enhancement of maintenance, the change in circumstances, coupled with the increase in cost of living, warrants a reasonable enhancement, though not to the extent claimed. The learned Court below failed to strike a proper balance and ignored the very object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is to ensure that a wife is able to maintain herself with dignity, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record, has rightly passed the 4 impugned order. The Court took note of the admitted marital relationship between the parties, the earlier maintenance order dated 22.05.2012 passed in Case No. 152/11, and the claim of enhancement sought on account of alleged change in circumstances. The learned Family Court also considered the rival contentions regarding the 7nancial capacity of the respondent, the status of the daughter, and the support available to the revisionist, and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, exercised its judicial discretion in accordance with law. The impugned order re>ects a proper application of mind to the relevant provisions governing maintenance proceedings and cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal, or unreasonable. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certi7ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan