1 CGHC010187982025 2026:CGHC:35600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 631 of 2025 Shrimati Savita Gupta W/o Om Prakash Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Kedarpur Ambikapur, P.S. Ambikapur, Tehsil - Ambikapur And District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Om Prakash Gupta S/o Swaminath Gupta Aged About 55 Years R/o Kedarpur Ambikapur, P.S. Ambikapur, Tehsil - Ambikapur And District Surguja, Currently R/o Dhaurpur P.S. And Tahsil - Dhaurpur Post - Baboli District - Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel appearing, for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Amarnath Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been 8led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to revise the order dated ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.13 15:05:17 +0530 2 02.04.2025, passed by the learned Court of Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur District- Surguja in case bearing number Miscellaneous Criminal Case/81/2024 (Smt. Savita Gupta v/s Om Prakash Gupta) and consequently, grant monthly subsistence/maintenance to the applicant to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/-.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant 8led an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount payable by the respondent/husband. The applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and the parties solemnized their marriage on 26.05.1997 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was married to the respondent on 26.05.1997 according to Hindu rites and customs, and out of their wedlock, two sons, namely Durgesh Gupta and Mithilesh Gupta, were born, who are presently residing with the applicant. 4. The applicant had 8led an application against the respondent before the learned Court on 19.09.2022 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The said application was allowed vide order dated 29.04.2023, whereby the respondent was directed to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the applicant. However, considering the present prevailing in;ation and the expenses required for the maintenance and education of the applicant and her two sons, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month is wholly insu>cient. The applicant and her two sons require approximately Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month for their maintenance and education. The respondent/husband is a government employee and is posted as a Patwari, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 63,326/-. Out of the said amount, he allegedly spends only 3 Rs. 20,000/- per month on himself and saves the remaining amount. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month. 5. Despite being 8nancially capable and having su>cient means, the respondent has deliberately and maliciously failed and refused to adequately maintain the applicant, who is unemployed and has no independent source of income to maintain herself. It is respectfully submitted that the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), is erroneous, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and contrary to the settled principles of law. The application 8led by the applicant under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance has been dismissed by the learned Family Court. Therefore, the applicant most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside/modify the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 and allow the application 8led by the applicant under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., thereby enhancing the monthly maintenance amount to Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month, in the interest of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is erroneous, illegal, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, warrants interference by this Court. She submits that despite being 8nancially and otherwise capable of maintaining the applicant, the respondent/husband has deliberately and maliciously refused to maintain her, despite the fact that she is unemployed and has no independent source of income to maintain herself. Unfortunately, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate this material aspect, thereby leaving the applicant in a state of 8nancial hardship and destitution. She also submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the 4 respondent is 8nancially well-oF and has su>cient means to maintain the applicant, but has deliberately and maliciously refused to maintain his legally wedded wife. She further submits that the applicant cannot reasonably sustain herself on a meagre amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The applicant is also required to bear the expenses towards the education, healthcare, and other necessities of her two sons. The respondent is a government employee and is posted as a Patwari, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 63,326/-. Out of the said amount, he spends only approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month on himself and saves the remaining amount. The impugned order defeats the very intent and object of the benevolent provisions relating to maintenance, including Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which seeks to ensure that a person having no su>cient independent means is able to sustain herself with dignity. She also submits that needless to say, owing to the passing of the impugned order, grave injustice is being caused to the applicant, which warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 81/2024. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings, documents and evidence available on record, rejected the application 8led by the applicant under Section 127 of the BNSS, taking into consideration that the applicant and her sons are residing in the ancestral house of the respondent, while the respondent is suFering from serious ailments, including heart disease 5 and kidney infection, and is also bearing his own medical expenses besides paying maintenance to his 8rst wife. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, found that the existing maintenance amount did not warrant any enhancement. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 8nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in8rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek