1 CGHC010284792026 2026:CGHC:32318 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 964 of 2026 Shatruhan Yadu S/o Chetan Yadu Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Near Radhakishan Mandir, Imali Bhatha, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Lata Yadu W/o Shatruhan Yadu Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Ramsagar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned. 3. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and to set-aside the impugned order RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 dated 10.03.2026 passed by learned Family Court, Balodadabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 176/2024 which is arising out of maintenance order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the learned family Court, in the interest of justice.” 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized in accordance with the prevailing social rites and customs. Pursuant to proceedings initiated by the respondent seeking maintenance, the competent Court, vide order dated 10.11.2023, awarded maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month in her favour, which the applicant has been paying in terms of the said order. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.), seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. The applicant appeared and filed his reply denying the allegations made in the application and specifically contended that he has no fixed source of income and that his earnings are meagre and insufficient even for his own livelihood. However, by the impugned order, the learned Family Court partly allowed the respondent’s application and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,500/- per month to Rs.4,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the said enhancement order, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. 3 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is contended that the maintenance amount has been enhanced from Rs.2,500/- per month to Rs.4,000/- per month in the absence of any credible evidence demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances after passing of the earlier maintenance order, which is a sine qua non for enhancement under law. He further submits that the respondent failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that the income of the applicant had increased and, therefore, the finding regarding his earning capacity is based merely on assumptions and conjectures. It is argued that the learned Family Court erroneously assessed the applicant’s income on the basis of minimum wages without any material to show that he is engaged in regular or permanent employment, while ignoring his unrebutted testimony that he works as a daily wager and earns a meagre and uncertain income. It is further submitted that the respondent did not adduce any cogent evidence, such as fee receipts or other supporting documents, to substantiate the alleged increase in educational or living expenses. He also contends that the respondent is capable of maintaining herself, as there is material indicating that she is engaged in stitching work and also earns as a labourer, besides having a three-storeyed residential house. It is further submitted that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and has made no effort to resume cohabitation with the applicant. He argues that the 4 learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, did not record any clear finding regarding the actual income of the applicant and mechanically enhanced the maintenance amount, which is excessive, unreasonable and beyond the financial capacity of the applicant. It is also submitted that the impugned order was passed in the absence of the applicant, causing serious prejudice to him. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside or suitably modified by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record, and the material available before it, has rightly passed the impugned order. The learned Family Court has taken into account the fact that the respondent was already receiving maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month pursuant to the earlier order dated 10.11.2023 and has further examined the circumstances placed on record in support of the application for enhancement. Upon appreciation of the evidence and the prevailing cost of living, the learned Family Court arrived at a well-reasoned conclusion that the amount previously awarded was inadequate for the maintenance of the respondent and, accordingly, enhanced the maintenance to Rs.4,000/- per month. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of the material available on record. The 5 impugned order appears to be just, reasonable and in consonance with the settled principles governing grant and enhancement of maintenance. 8. Considering the submission 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan