1 2026:CGHC:9021 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 261 of 2026 Smt. Anju Tirkey W/o Surendra Bhagat Aged About 30 Years R/o L.I.G. 142 Housing Board Colony Devrikhurd, P.S. Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Surendra Bhagat S/o Kishore Ram Bhagat Aged About 32 Years Occupation Assistant Grade- 3 At District And Session Court Bilaspur, R/o Street No. 01 Bangalipara, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tehsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aditya Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.418/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed 2 the application under Section 127 CrPC filed by the applicant and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant, being the legally wedded wife of the respondent, initially filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance, which was amicably settled before the Lok Adalat on 21.01.2019, wherein the respondent agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance, and the said amount has been paid till date. Subsequently, the applicant filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount on the ground of rise in inflation after COVID-19, absence of any independent source of income, and increased personal expenses including house rent and educational expenses as she is pursuing B.Ed. and preparing for PSC examinations. It was further contended that the respondent is employed as Assistant Grade-III in the District and Sessions Court, Bilaspur, earning approximately Rs.25,000–30,000 per month, and is financially capable of paying enhanced maintenance. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application for enhancement and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the same, present revision has been filed by the applicant for further enhancement. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 is bad in law and liable to be set aside, as the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material facts 3 and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court did not consider that the maintenance amount was originally fixed in the year 2019 and, in view of the substantial rise in inflation and cost of living, the enhanced amount of Rs.7,000/- per month is grossly insufficient for the applicant to maintain herself with dignity. He further submits that the learned Family Court further failed to appreciate that the applicant is a helpless lady having no independent source of income and is legally wedded wife of the respondent, which fact has never been disputed. It is a settled principle of law that the husband is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife. The respondent is a healthy and able-bodied person, employed in a government office, earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month, and is fully capable of providing adequate maintenance to the applicant. He also submits that the learned family Court also failed to consider that the applicant was subjected to cruelty and was ousted from her matrimonial home by the respondent and his family members, compelling her to reside at her parental home. In such circumstances, the respondent is legally liable to maintain the applicant as per the status of respondents in accordance with law, and the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities and deserves to be interfered with by this Court. 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 has partly allowed the application under Section 127 4 CrPC filed by the applicant and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month, holding that there has been a material change in circumstances since the earlier order dated 21.01.2019, particularly in view of the admitted increase in the income of the respondent, who is employed as Assistant Grade-III in the District and Sessions Court, Bilaspur, and earning a net salary of Rs.31,890/- per month. The Court observed that the respondent is financially capable of maintaining the applicant, and considering the lapse of more than five years from the previous order, enhancement of maintenance was justified, however, the Court granted only partial relief by increasing the amount to Rs.7,000/- per month with effect from 12.12.2025. 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil