1 2026:CGHC:7132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 980 of 2024 Pawan Kumar Banjare S/o Late Banthu, Aged About 62 Years R/o Madroll, District Raipur, Present Address Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Geeta Bai W/o Shri Pawan Kumar Banjare, Aged About 51 Years R/o Manroll Police Station Raipur, District Raipur, Present Address Motimpur, Police Station- Takhatpur, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anand Bajaj, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 5led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal and set-aside the Order dated 14.08.2024 passed in Misc Criminal Case No. 63/2024 by Judge of family court Mungeli (C.G.)., in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent–wife 5led an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 2 06.04.2024 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli seeking enhancement of maintenance against the applicant– husband, pleading that she is his legally wedded wife and that, by earlier order dated 14.06.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 49/2018, maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to her and Rs.4,000/- per month to their daughter had been awarded, it was further averred that the applicant, who was serving as a government teacher and later promoted as Head Master drawing substantial salary, also possessed agricultural land and rental income, thereby earning about Rs.1,55,000/- per month and having no substantial liabilities, whereas the respondent was earning only about Rs.2,000/- per month from Anganwadi service and was unable to maintain herself and her daughter, and thus sought enhancement of maintenance to Rs.50,000/- each. The applicant contested the claim by 5ling written statement dated 19.06.2024 denying the alleged income, pleading retirement without receipt of pension, absence of rental or agricultural earnings, 5nancial hardship, and further stating that the daughter had been married on 30.04.2024 and was residing in her matrimonial home, thereby disentitling her from maintenance. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and after examining both parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 14.08.2024, partly allowed the application and enhanced the maintenance payable to the respondent–wife from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month with e@ect from the date of application i.e., 06.04.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, has failed to properly appreciate the material available on record inasmuch as the applicant is a retired government servant receiving pension of about Rs.54,750/- per month and is only a joint holder of approximately 5ve acres of agricultural land situated at Village Madroud along with his sister and mother, from which no exclusive or substantial income is derived, and a considerable portion of his pension is being spent on medical treatment for himself and his aged mother. It is further submitted that the respondent–wife herself admitted in paragraph 6 of her deposition that she is earning about Rs.5,000/- per month from the post of Sahayika, yet the learned Family Court, without duly considering such admission and the reduced 5nancial capacity of the applicant after retirement, particularly when at the time of the earlier maintenance order of Rs.6,000/- the applicant was in active service earning about Rs.85,000/- per month has erroneously enhanced the maintenance to Rs.20,000/- per month, which is disproportionate to and beyond the present earning capacity of the applicant, thereby 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 Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, upon due consideration of the rival pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed on record, and the attending facts and circumstances of the case, has 4 rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent–wife is legally entitled to adequate maintenance commensurate with the status and 5nancial capacity of the applicant–husband, and that the earlier maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month had become insuDcient in view of the passage of time, rising cost of living, and the respondent’s limited independent income, accordingly, the learned Family Court, by its well-reasoned order dated 14.08.2024, justly and properly exercised jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in partly allowing the application and enhancing the maintenance to Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of application, which 5nding is based on correct appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law governing maintenance. 6. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 5nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in5rmity 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 certi5ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan