1 CGHC010057982025 2026:CGHC:34261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 229 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Jatan Lal Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village - Narayanpur, Post Bhuvneshwar P.S. - Shrinagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus Mintra Sahu W/o Manoj Kumar Sahu Aged About 36 Years D/o Shri Prabhunarayan, R/o Sakariya Tehsil Pondi Bachra, District - Korea (C.G.). … Non-Applicant For Petitioner : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 3led by the petitioner with the following prayer : “Therefore, Petitioner prays for the following relief from this Hon'ble Court. 1. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to M.J.C. No. 95/2024 decided by Judge Family Court, Manendragarh (C.G.). RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Judge Family Court, Manendragarh (C.G.). (Annexure P-1). 3. Any other relief/ reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may think 2t and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2008 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and no child was born out of the said wedlock. After the marriage, the parties resided together in a joint family at Narayanpur. However, according to the petitioner, the conduct and behaviour of the respondent towards him and his family members remained indi;erent and non-cordial from the very inception of the matrimonial relationship, and in the year 2010, she, of her own free will and volition, left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental house without any justi3able cause. Despite several sincere e;orts made by the petitioner and his family members to bring the respondent back and restore the matrimonial relationship, all such attempts proved futile. Consequently, the petitioner instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion, which was registered as Civil Case No. 21-A/2014 before the learned District Judge, Surajpur. The said petition was allowed ex parte vide judgment and 3 decree dated 04.07.2015, whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved on the ground of desertion. The respondent did not challenge the said judgment and decree, and the same has attained 3nality. Thereafter, the respondent instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 33/2017, wherein she was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month payable by the petitioner. Subsequently, on 10.05.2024, the respondent preferred an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month, which was registered as M.J.C. No. 95/2024 before the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 13.12.2024, partly allowed the said application and enhanced the maintenance amount, aggrieved by which the petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and law and su;ers from serious legal in3rmities. It is contended that the learned Court below has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has erroneously exercised its jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 while enhancing the maintenance amount. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to obtain aCdavits of assets, liabilities and income of the parties in terms of 4 the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable. He further submits that the marriage between the parties already stood dissolved by an ex parte decree of divorce dated 04.07.2015 passed on the ground of desertion, which has attained 3nality, and the respondent, having voluntarily deserted the petitioner without suCcient cause, is not entitled to claim maintenance in view of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is also argued that the respondent is 3nancially independent, is employed at a multipurpose retail store, earns suCcient income to maintain herself, and has even purchased a Maruti Suzuki EECO car in the year 2020, which clearly indicates her sound 3nancial status, however, she deliberately concealed her actual income before the learned Family Court. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is merely a vegetable vendor earning about Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month, has remarried, and is solely responsible for maintaining his second wife and two minor children, yet the learned Family Court, despite recording his limited income, has arbitrarily enhanced the maintenance to Rs.4,000/- per month without properly considering his 3nancial liabilities. It is also contended that the respondent has been residing separately since the year 2010, had initially sought maintenance only in the year 2017, and thereafter 3led the application under Section 127 of the Code only with an intention to harass the petitioner despite being capable of maintaining herself. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is manifestly illegal, 5 arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles governing grant and enhancement of maintenance, and the same deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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 passed a well-reasoned and speaking order. The learned Family Court has duly appreciated the respective 3nancial status, earning capacity, and liabilities of the parties and has taken into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances governing the claim for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court below has recorded cogent 3ndings on the basis of the evidence available on record and, upon being satis3ed that there was a change in the circumstances warranting enhancement of maintenance, has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in partly allowing the respondent’s application and enhancing the maintenance amount by the impugned order dated 13.12.2024. The 3ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and settled principles of law. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order and the 3nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the 6 Family Court has not committed any illegality or in3rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi3ed copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan