1 2026:CGHC:7134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 724 of 2024 Ravi Gilahare S/o Late Kumar Das Gilahare, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village- Dhusera, Police Station- Sejbahar, Raipur Chowki, Police Station- Sejbahar, Raipur Chowki, Police Station Mujghan, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur ( C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Kaveri Gilahare W/o Shri Ravi Gilahare, Aged About 37 Years Through- Mother Smt. Sukariya Jangade. All Are Resident Of Village- Dondekala, Police Station- Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur ( C.G.). Pin No. 493111. 2 - Ayush Gilahare, S/o Shri Ravi Gilahare, Aged About 8 Years Minor Through- The Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kaveri Gilahare, Resident Of Village- Dondekala, Police Station- Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur ( C.G.). Pin No. 493111. 3 - Piyush Gilahare S/o Ravi Gilahare, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through- His Natural Guardian- Mother Smt. Kavei Gilahare Through Mother Smt. Sukariya Jangade Windo Of Late Dhanaji Das Jangade Resident Of Village- Dondekala, Police Station- Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur ( C.G.). Pin No. 493111. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been <led by the applicant with the following prayer: 2 “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 01.04.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) (Presided over by Shri Hemant Saraf) in Misc. MCC No. 923/2022 "Smt. Kaveri Gilahare and others Vs Ravi Gilahare", in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents <led an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount earlier awarded in favour of respondent Nos. 02 and 03 at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month each, contending that the applicant is employed as a Government Lecturer (Science) and is drawing a monthly salary of about Rs. 58,670/- and also possesses agricultural land, and therefore, in view of the rise in market prices, the maintenance amount deserved to be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- per month for each child. The applicant contested the application by denying the said contentions and speci<cally asserting that respondent No. 01 herself is employed as a Lecturer at Government Higher Secondary School, Jaroda, Block Dharsiva, and is earning a monthly salary of about Rs. 57,264/-, and is thus capable of maintaining herself and the children, however, the learned Family Court, by order dated 01.04.2024, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay enhanced maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to each of the children. Being 3 aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts, evidence and material available on record and su?ers from improper appreciation of evidence, inasmuch as the learned Family Court has awarded an enhanced maintenance amount in favour of respondent Nos. 02 and 03 which is on the higher side considering the <nancial condition and liabilities of the applicant. It is further contended that respondent No. 01 herself is employed as a Lecturer and is earning a suAcient salary, and is therefore capable of maintaining herself as well as contributing towards the maintenance of the children. It is also urged that the learned Family Court has failed to properly consider the scope and requirements of Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while enhancing the maintenance amount, rendering the impugned order illegal and unsustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings, 4 evidence and material available on record, has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a well- reasoned and lawful order dated 01.04.2024, whereby the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been partly allowed and the maintenance amount payable to respondent Nos. 02 and 03 has been enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per month each, keeping in view the status, needs and welfare of the minor children as well as the <nancial capacity of the applicant, thus, the impugned order reCects proper application of judicial mind. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the <nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in<rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi<ed copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan