1 CGHC010168132025 2026:CGHC:36284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 596 of 2025 Yogesh Dewangan S/o Late Kailash Dewangan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Pathraguda Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Rajni Dewangan W/o Yogesh Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Palligaon, Thothapara Tehsil - Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, holding the brief of Mr. Premshankar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /08/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.97/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 2 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent, and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.6820/- to Rs. 7820/- per month. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 04.08.2017 before the Special Marriage Officer, Jagdalpur, and was a love marriage. The applicant is employed in the Police Department, however, due to matrimonial differences, the respondent started residing separately and subsequently filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance, pursuant to which the learned Family Court, vide order dated 08.04.2021, awarded maintenance of Rs.6,820/- per month in her favour. The applicant regularly complied with the said order. Thereafter, on 26.07.2023, the respondent filed an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement of maintenance on the grounds of inflation, her health condition and inadequacy of the existing amount, contending that the applicant, being a salaried employee and her legally wedded husband, was liable to provide enhanced maintenance. The applicant opposed the application by filing a detailed reply, disclosing his financial liabilities and obligations and placing supporting documents on record. Despite the pleadings and evidence of both parties, the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 127 CrPC and enhanced the maintenance by Rs.1,000/- over and above the amount earlier awarded, which has led to the filing of the present revision petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in allowing the application under Section 127 CrPC without properly appreciating the requirement of a substantial change in circumstances and the financial capacity of the petitioner. The respondent relied mainly upon general assertions regarding inflation and health issues without producing cogent documentary or medical evidence, whereas the petitioner placed sufficient material on record to establish his financial liabilities and limited means. The learned Court failed to balance the reasonable needs of the respondent with the petitioner's actual financial capacity and existing obligations. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material contradictions in the respondent's cross-examination regarding receipt of maintenance and alleged arrears. The respondent admitted that she had not filed any application for recovery of the alleged unpaid maintenance and also admitted that she had not produced documentary evidence in support of her claim for enhancement. Despite the absence of supporting material from the respondent, the learned Court mechanically enhanced the maintenance by Rs.1,000/- and failed to give due consideration to the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner regarding his financial constraints. He also submits that the learned Family Court also failed to consider the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner regarding the respondent's alleged adulterous conduct, which according to the petitioner 4 remained unrebutted. The impugned order, having been passed without proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, financial circumstances and material contradictions on record, suffers from non-application of judicial mind and is contrary to the settled principles governing enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 CrPC. Hence, the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 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 learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent, and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.6,820/- to Rs.7,820/- per month, holding that there had been a change in the circumstances since the earlier order dated 08.04.2021, particularly on account of the increase in the cost of living and the respondent’s increased medical and daily expenses. The learned Family Court further relied upon the applicant’s admitted income as a government employee, his net salary being approximately Rs.41,000/- per month, and the increase in his salary and allowances. Accordingly, an enhancement of Rs.1,000/- per month was considered just and proper from the date of the impugned order. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 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. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil