1 2026:CGHC:21994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 548 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sukrita Bai W/o Ramkhilawan Aged About 33 Years R/o (Tuman) At Present Kotadabri, P.S. And Tehsil Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Muskan D/o Ramkhilawan Aged About 14 Years Minor By Mother Smt. Sukrita Bai, R/o Kotadabri, P.S. And Tahsil Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Ramkhilawan S/o Ramdayal Aged About 40 Years R/o Tuman P.S. Urga (Chouki) Tahsil Kartala, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Santosh Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.05.2026 1. I.A. No.1 of 2026 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision of 04 days. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. 3. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 234/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed under Section 127 CrPC by the applicants and directed the non-applicant/husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No.2/daughter, totaling Rs. 4,000/- per month, from the date of passing of the order. The non-applicant/husband has also been directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Brief facts of the case are that it was an admitted fact in the present case that the applicants had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 48/2009. In the said case, the Family Court, vide order dated 03.05.2011, had awarded a total maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) per month to the applicants from the non-applicant. It was also an admitted fact that, for enhancement of the awarded maintenance amount, the applicants had filed an application on 01.02.2013, which was dismissed for want of prosecution by the Court vide order dated 05.11.2016 on account of the absence of the applicants and non-payment of process fee for securing the 3 presence of the non-applicant. The case of the applicants was that about 14 years had elapsed since the passing of the earlier order and the non-applicant had not been regularly paying the awarded maintenance amount, due to which they had been facing great difÏculty in maintaining themselves. It was stated that the non- applicant was employed as a regular employee in a company at Raigarh and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only). Owing to the steep rise in inflation and the inadequacy of the previously awarded maintenance amount, the applicants were facing severe financial hardship and were virtually on the verge of starvation. Therefore, they had prayed for enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month. 5. In reply, the non-applicant had contended that he was a poor person who earned his livelihood through daily wage labour and was also responsible for maintaining his aged parents. It was further contended that applicant No.1 was capable of maintaining herself and possessed ancestral property situated at Kotadabri, Champa. Applicant No.1 was stated to be the sole daughter with no siblings and was residing at her maternal uncle’s village Kotadabri. It was also stated that the mother of applicant No.1 owned 04 acres of agricultural land and a pucca house in village Kotadabri, from which applicant No.1 allegedly earned an annual income of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), apart from earning Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month through work. Hence, the non- 4 applicant had prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the applicants. 6. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence, the impugned order and the material available on record, passed the order dated 02.01.2026, whereby the maintenance amount awarded to applicant No.1 was enhanced from Rs.1,000/- per month to Rs.2,000/- per month and the maintenance amount awarded to applicant No.2 was enhanced from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.2,000/- per month, on the ground that the rate of inflation had increased. Consequently, a total sum of Rs.4,000/- per month was awarded towards maintenance to the applicants. Hence, the present revision has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the learned Family Court had passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the facts, circumstances of the case and the material available on record, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and suitably modified. It was further submitted that the applicants had been constrained to survive on a meagre amount of maintenance for the last approximately 14 years and even the said amount had not been paid regularly by the non-applicant, due to which the applicants had been facing acute financial hardship in maintaining themselves. He further submitted that, in view of the ever-increasing cost of living and inflation, the awarded maintenance amount was wholly insufÏcient to meet even the basic day-to-day needs of the applicants. It was also argued that applicant No.2, being a growing child, required proper financial 5 support towards educational expenses, school fees, clothing, food, medical expenses and other essential requirements, which could not possibly be met from the inadequate maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court. It was contended that the learned Family Court failed to take into consideration the actual needs and requirements of the applicants while passing the impugned order. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the present revision and grant adequate maintenance to them. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after appreciating the evidence and and material available on record, passed the order on 02.01.2026, whereby enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.1500/- per month to Rs.4000/- per month on the premise that the inflation rate has gone up and therefore, the applicants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 4000/- While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non- applicant and the genuine needs of the applicants. Therefore, the 6 maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned orders and the findings recorded by the learned Family Court concerned, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal