1 2026:CGHC:25177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 743 of 2026 Santosh Kumar Bareth S/o Hulas Ram Bareth Aged About 47 Years R/o Sarkho Village Tahsil And District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Malti Bareth W/o Santosh Bareth Aged About 39 Years R/o Sarkho Village Tahsil And District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Pravin Kumar Bareth S/o Santosh Kumar Bareth Aged About 10 Years Through Legal Guardian Smt. Malti Bareth W/o Santosh Bareth Aged About 39 Years R/o Sarkho Village Tahsil And District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Adarsh Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19 /06/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Matrimonial Case AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.196/2025, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 146 of BNSS filed by the respondents and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month (Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of respondent/wife with the appellant was solemnized in the year 2001 according to Hindu rites and customs, and out of the said wedlock three children were born, namely Kajal, Kanchan and respondent No.2 Pravin Kumar Bareth. It is alleged that after about thirteen years of matrimonial life, the appellant started residing separately at Village Lachhanpur and neglected to maintain the respondent/wife and the children. It is further the case of the respondent that she had earlier instituted a maintenance proceeding bearing Case No.44/2016, which was amicably settled before the Lok Adalat on 27.03.2016, wherein the appellant agreed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. However, according to the respondent, the appellant subsequently defaulted in payment of the agreed maintenance amount and failed to discharge his legal obligation towards the maintenance of his wife and children. On these allegations, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 127 Cr.P.C.) before the learned Family Court seeking enhancement/interim maintenance. In the said proceedings, it was alleged that the appellant was working as a Computer Operator in the Labour Department, District Janjgir, earning approximately Rs.40,000/- per month and also possessed 3 agricultural land yielding substantial agricultural income. On the basis of the pleadings and material available on record, the learned Family Court, Janjgir, vide order dated 18.03.2026, passed the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the appellant is merely a daily wager/labourer with no permanent source of income and resides in a rented accommodation for which he pays Rs.2,000/- per month. The Court erroneously accepted the respondent's allegations that the appellant is employed as a Computer Operator in the Labour Department earning Rs.40,000/- per month and owns three acres of agricultural land, despite there being no documentary evidence whatsoever in support of such allegations. He further submits that the learned Family Court further overlooked the admissions made by the respondent/wife during her cross-examination, wherein she categorically admitted that no document relating to the appellant's alleged employment, salary, posting, or ownership of agricultural land had been filed on record. The burden to establish such facts lay upon the respondent, but no appointment letter, salary slip, income certificate, bank statement, revenue record, khasra, B-1, or any other cogent evidence was produced before the Court. He also submits that the learned Family Court also failed to consider that the parties had earlier settled their dispute before the Lok Adalat in Case No.44/2016 and that another proceeding instituted by the respondent had been dismissed for want of prosecution. 4 Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.03.2026, awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month, is excessive and disproportionate to the appellant's financial capacity and has been passed on assumptions and presumptions without proper appreciation of the material available on record. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside or suitably modified. 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 partly allowed the application under Section 146 of BNSS filed by the respondents and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month (Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2), holding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier order passed in the year 2016. The Family Court found that the cost of living and inflation had considerably increased, respondent No.2 had subsequently started studying in a private school requiring additional expenditure towards education and maintenance, and the earlier maintenance amount had become insufficient. The Court further observed that although the respondents failed to produce documentary evidence regarding the appellant's alleged employment in the Labour Department or ownership of agricultural land, the appellant had also not produced any documentary evidence regarding his income and had failed to file the affidavit of assets and liabilities as contemplated in Rajnesh 5 v. Neha. Taking into consideration the increase in living expenses, the educational needs of respondent No.2, and the overall circumstances of the parties, the learned Family Court held that enhancement of maintenance was justified and accordingly awarded a total maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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