1 2026:CGHC:2456 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 76 of 2026 Ramesh Tiwari S/o Late Chunnilal Tiwari Aged About 60 Years R/o Vill. Ghatlohanga, Kotwarpara, P.S.- City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, Distt.- Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Dujmani Tiwari W/o Ramesh Tiwari Aged About 50 Years R/o Bajarpara, Tokapal, Tah. Tokapal, Distt.- Bastar (C.G.) ... respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Cr. M.J.C. No.17/2025, whereby, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Section 146 of BNSS filed by the respondent-wife and enhanced the maintenance amount awarded to the respondent-wife from Rs.2,600/- per month to Rs.7,000/- per month. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount of Rs.2,600/- per month, which had been awarded earlier in her favour. In her application, the respondent stated that due to a substantial rise in inflation and her ill health, the earlier maintenance amount had become insufficient to meet her day-to-day expenses. She asserted that she is residing in a rented house and, therefore, sought enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs.2,600/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. She further alleged that the applicant was employed in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, National Highway, Public Works Department, Jagdalpur, as a Field Manager, and was financially well-off. According to the respondent, the applicant was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as rental income and approximately Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from agricultural income. The applicant filed his reply to the application under Section 146 of B.N.S.S., categorically denying all the averments made by the respondent. He contended that the respondent has been residing in her parental house for the past 30 years and not in a rented accommodation. The applicant further stated that he had retired 3 from service on 30.04.2025 and is presently receiving only Rs.7,750/- per month as pension. He also submitted that he is suffering from kidney disease, had undergone surgery two years ago at Visakhapatnam, and incurs monthly medical expenses of about Rs.3,000/-. He further stated that his agricultural income is only Rs.10,000/- per month. Additionally, it was contended that the respondent herself is working as an Anganwadi worker and is earning approximately Rs.10,000/- per month. On these grounds, the applicant prayed for dismissal of the respondent’s application for enhancement of maintenance. 3. The Family Court, after considering the pleadings and material placed on record, passed an order enhancing the maintenance amount in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in law and facts by enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.2,600/- to Rs.7,000/- per month, without there being sufficient material on record to justify such enhancement. He further submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the submissions of the applicant in their proper perspective, particularly the fact that the applicant has retired from service and is receiving a meagre pension of only Rs.7,750/- per month, and therefore is not financially capable of paying the enhanced amount of maintenance. He also submits that the learned Family Court further erred in not considering the material 4 circumstances that the applicant is suffering from kidney disease, is required to incur monthly medical expenses of about Rs.3,000/-, and that the respondent herself is a working Anganwadi employee earning approximately Rs.10,000/- per month, which fact materially affects her claim for enhancement of maintenance. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 146 of BNSS filed by the respondent-wife and enhanced the maintenance amount awarded to the respondent-wife from Rs.2,600/- per month to Rs.7,000/- per month observing that the earlier amount fixed about ten years ago had become insufficient in view of rising cost of living. The learned Family Court has further taken into consideration the income, assets, life-style and earning capacity of the applicant-husband, including his agricultural land and residential status, and found that the respondent-wife is entitled to maintenance in accordance with the applicant’s standard of living, despite her limited income. Accordingly, the maintenance amount has been enhanced as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil