1 CGHC010240202026 2026:CGHC:30178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 882 of 2026 Milan Kumar Bhaumik S/o Late Shri Tapas Kumar Bhaumik Aged About 44 Years Caste- Kayastha R/o Plot No B/6 Street No.6 Panchsheel Housing Society Borsi Durg Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Madhumita Bhaumik W/o Milan Kumar Bhaumik Aged About 37 Years Caste- Kayastha R/o Through Father Shri Gopal Chand Sheel 355, Priyadarshani Nagar, Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Saurabh Poddar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16 /07/2026 1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant assailing the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C. No. 17/2021, whereby the application preferred by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 the respondent under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been partly allowed and the amount of maintenance payable by the applicant has been enhanced from Rs.8,000/- per month to Rs.20,000/- per month. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the revisionist and the respondent was solemnized on 01.12.2015. According to the revisionist, the respondent left the matrimonial home on 23.05.2016, after residing there for only about five months. Thereafter, the revisionist instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights on 12.07.2016, which was registered as HMA Case No. 364/2016. The Family Court allowed the petition, holding that the respondent had deliberately withdrawn from the society of the revisionist without sufficient cause and directed her to resume cohabitation with him. The said decree was affirmed by the High Court, which dismissed the respondent's appeal in FAM No. 226 of 2019 by order dated 11.10.2022.It is further the case of the revisionist that, despite the decree and the execution proceedings initiated thereafter, the respondent neither complied with the decree for more than four years nor expressed willingness to reside with the revisionist. On the contrary, in her reply filed in the execution proceedings, she categorically refused to live with him. In the meantime, the respondent filed an application seeking maintenance, which was allowed on 06.04.2019, whereby she was awarded Rs.8,000 per month as maintenance. The revisionist contends that the maintenance order itself records that the respondent was 3 running a shop and earning approximately Rs.20,000 per month. Subsequently, on an application for enhancement of maintenance, the Family Court enhanced the maintenance from Rs.8,000 to Rs.20,000 per month. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, present criminal revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order enhancing the maintenance from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month is arbitrary, mechanical, and contrary to settled principles of law. It is contended that no material was placed on record to establish any substantial change in the circumstances of the parties, which is a sine qua non for enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. According to the revisionist, the Family Court enhanced the maintenance without recording any finding regarding a legitimate change in the financial condition of either party. He further submits that the respondent-wife is a highly qualified and educated lady, stated to be a Software Engineer, and is also running a boutique/shop, with the earlier maintenance order itself recording that she was earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per month. It is argued that she is capable of maintaining herself and had concealed her earning capacity from the Court. Reliance is placed on various decisions of the Supreme Court to contend that an able-bodied and qualified spouse, who is capable of earning but deliberately remains idle, is not entitled to claim enhanced maintenance. He also submits that the Family Court failed to properly appreciate the financial condition and liabilities of the revisionist while granting a substantial enhancement in maintenance. According to the revisionist, there has 4 been no extraordinary increase in inflation or any other circumstance warranting a twofold enhancement of maintenance. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside as being unsustainable in law. 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 Family Court, Raipur, partly allowed the applicant under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.8,000/- per month to Rs.20,000/- per month, holding that there had been a substantial change in the circumstances after the original order dated 06.04.2019. The Family Court recorded that nearly seven years had elapsed since the grant of maintenance, during which there had been a considerable rise in the cost of living and the respondent's day-to-day expenses. It further found that the applicant's financial condition had significantly improved, as his gross salary had increased from about Rs.40,000/- in 2018 to Rs.2,24,580/- in July, 2025, with a net salary of approximately Rs.1,57,171/- after deductions, owing to promotions and increments. Although it was found that the respondent was earning some income through tuition and the operation of a boutique, relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Family Court held that mere earning capacity or partial income does not disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance. It also observed that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained 5 by the applicant and the respondent's refusal to resume cohabitation were not determinative in proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C., which are confined to examining whether there has been a change in the circumstances warranting modification of maintenance. Accordingly, considering the enhanced income of the applicant, the rise in living expenses, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount as aforementioned, which is just and proper. 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