1 CGHC010010132025 2026:CGHC:33001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 37 of 2025 Ramnaresh S/o Late Phoolsai, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Amanala, Haldibari, Chirmiri, Dist. M.C.B. (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Tarakali W/o Ramnaresh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Hospital Dafaai, Near Office Haldibari, Chirmiri, Police Station and Tehsil Chirmiri Raipur, Dist. M.C.B. (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District - Korea, (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.222/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has party allowed the application under Section 127 CrPC filed by the respondent and granted maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month to respondent. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application dated 01.11.2023 under Section 127 of the Code of PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.31 15:10:30 +0530 2 Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Family Court"), seeking enhancement of maintenance. It is pertinent to mention that, by order dated 06.03.2019 passed in Case No. 51/2018, the maintenance payable to the respondent had already been enhanced from Rs.4,000/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per month. In the said application, the respondent pleaded that the cost of living had substantially increased due to inflation. She further alleged that she was paying house rent of Rs.2,000/- per month and was suffering from kidney stone disease, requiring medical treatment and medicines costing approximately Rs.5,000/- per month. On these grounds, she claimed that the existing maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month was insufficient for her sustenance. The respondent further alleged that the applicant was employed as a Trammer in SECL and was earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Accordingly, she prayed for enhancement of maintenance to Rs.25,000/- per month. The applicant filed a detailed reply denying the allegations made by the respondent. He submitted that the earlier enhancement of maintenance by Rs.1,000/- had been granted on the basis of a compromise between the parties. He further stated that the respondent was residing in her own house and was not paying any rent. It was also specifically denied that the respondent was suffering from kidney stone disease or incurring any medical expenses as alleged. The applicant further submitted that he has a family comprising his wife and children to maintain. He also stated that he himself suffers from health issues, due to which he is unable to perform his duties for the entire day. It was further averred that the respondent is engaged in private employment and earns approximately Rs.10,000/- per month. According to the applicant, the respondent was adequately maintained by the existing 3 maintenance amount, and there had been no such material change in circumstances since the order dated 06.03.2019 so as to justify enhancement. The application under Section 127 CrPC was, therefore, stated to have been filed only to harass the applicant and deserved to be dismissed. After considering the pleadings, oral evidence, and material available on record, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 19.11.2024, enhanced the maintenance payable to the respondent from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.9,000/- per month and directed the applicant to pay the enhanced amount towards her maintenance. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.11.2024, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts, evidence available on record, and the settled principles of law, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and evidence on record in their correct perspective and erroneously passed the impugned order. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the applicant and, without any cogent basis, erroneously held the respondent entitled to enhanced maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent failed to produce any reliable documentary evidence to establish that she was residing in a rented accommodation or that she was suffering from kidney stone disease requiring substantial medical expenditure. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is maintaining his wife and children, is bearing the educational expenses of his children, and is also repaying the loan obtained for his medical treatment, the installments of which are being deducted from his salary. The applicant himself is 4 suffering from various ailments and is incurring substantial expenses towards his medical treatment. Owing to his medical condition, he is unable to perform his official duties efficiently without assistance, thereby incurring additional expenditure. The respondent is residing in her own house and is not paying any rent, contrary to the averments made in the application under Section 127 CrPC. The respondent failed to establish that she is suffering from kidney stone disease or that she is incurring any recurring medical expenses. In the absence of proof of any material change in circumstances, she was not entitled to enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Family Court has passed the impugned order on conjectures and surmises, without proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rendering the order unsustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby 5 dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti