1 CGHC010182482024 2026:CGHC:35960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 95 of 2025 Jaitun Nisha W/o Late Abdul Gani Aged About 59 Years R/o West Jhagrakhaand Ward No. 05 Near Banglow Of Manager, O$ce Colony Police Station Jhagrakhand Tahsil Manendragarh District Mcb Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Jamin Hussain @ Janjir S/o Late Abdul Gani Aged About 42 Years R/o Haldibadi Road Ramnagar Near Anganbadi Police Station Ramnagar, Tahsil Kotma District Anooppur Madhya Pradesh. … Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Non-Applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer : “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleaded to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 and thereby the maintenance amount may be enhanced up to 10,000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant Jaitun Nisha preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 12.06.2023 before the learned Family Court against the non-applicant Jamin Hussain, seeking enhancement of maintenance, inter alia, pleading that her husband, Late Abdul Gani, was employed as a Driver at Khogapani Colliery and, owing to illness, was declared medically un7t to perform his duties. It was further pleaded that, upon her husband being rendered medically un7t, the non-applicant Jamin Hussain obtained employment in the Colliery in his place and has been working therein since the year 1994 and is presently posted as an Ammo Carrier at Haldibadi, Hasdeo Area. According to the applicant, during the lifetime of her husband, the non-applicant was maintaining the family members, however, after the death of her husband on 07.12.1997, the non- applicant neglected and failed to maintain her, compelling her to approach the Colliery Management, whereupon, in the year 1998, the non-applicant agreed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month, which amount was deducted from his salary and credited to the account of the applicant. It was further stated that, despite the applicant’s request for enhancement of the said amount, the non- applicant refused to increase the maintenance, whereas he was earning approximately Rs.60,000/- per month. The applicant also pleaded that, owing to her advanced age and ailments, she frequently remained unwell and had undergone treatment and operation relating to her back and left hand, and therefore claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. A copy of the application 3 7led under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was 7led and marked as Annexure A/2. 3. In response thereto, the non-applicant Jamin Hussain submitted his written statement, wherein he admitted that the husband of the applicant, Late Abdul Gani, was employed as a Driver at Khogapani Colliery and had subsequently become medically un7t due to illness, however, he denied that he had obtained employment on compassionate grounds on account of such medical un7tness and stated that he had secured employment on the basis of his own eligibility and ability. The non-applicant further pleaded that there was no provision for compassionate appointment merely on account of medical un7tness of an employee. He further stated that he had been regularly providing maintenance to the applicant and had also made available to her the quarter allotted to him by the Colliery. It was also pleaded that he had obtained a medical card for the applicant from the Colliery, by virtue of which she was entitled to medical treatment free of cost. The non-applicant further stated that he had requested the Colliery Management to pay one-half of the arrears and bonus payable from his salary to the applicant and that the said amount was deducted from his salary and paid to her. It was also pleaded that the non-applicant was residing separately with his wife and children in a rented house and was earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month, and after deductions towards income tax and other liabilities, he was left with approximately Rs.27,000/- per month for his own livelihood. On such basis, the non-applicant contended that the application under Section 125 4 Cr.P.C. had been 7led only to harass him and was liable to be dismissed. 4. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the learned Family Court framed the following issues: 7rstly, as to whether the applicant was unable to maintain herself, and secondly, as to whether the non- applicant was liable to maintain the applicant and, if so, to what extent. In support of her case, the applicant Jaitun Nisha entered the witness box and was examined as AW-1, and after her examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the non-applicant Jamin Hussain was examined as NAW-1. Thereafter, the learned Family Court heard the parties and, upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral evidence and material available on record, vide order dated 19.04.2024, enhanced the maintenance payable to the applicant from Rs.1,500/- per month to Rs.4,500/- per month and directed the non-applicant to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.3,000/- per month, over and above the existing maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month, with eCect from the date of 7ling of the application, i.e. 12.06.2023. The deposition sheet of the applicant Jaitun Nisha was 7led and marked as Annexure A/3, whereas the deposition sheet of the non-applicant Jamin Hussain was 7led and marked as Annexure A/4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19.04.2024, whereby the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.4,500/- per month with eCect from 12.06.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 5 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the material available on record, particularly the fact that an amount of Rs.1,04,000/- towards arrears of maintenance was deposited in the account of the applicant, which amount was subsequently utilized towards her heart surgery as well as surgery of her back and left hand, and she continues to incur expenses towards medicines and medical treatment. It is further submitted that the applicant is an aged mother of the non-applicant and, owing to her ailments, is unable to maintain herself and requires regular medical treatment. Learned counsel further submits that although the learned Family Court, in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, has noticed from the salary slips marked as Ex.NA-1 and Ex.NA-2 that the non-applicant was earning approximately Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per month, the Court has failed to consider that the present cost of living and the medical expenses of the applicant warranted a reasonable amount of maintenance. It is submitted that the non-applicant is admittedly earning a substantially higher salary and is capable of providing adequate maintenance to his mother, and therefore, enhancement of maintenance merely to Rs.4,500/- per month is wholly inadequate and disproportionate to the needs of the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Family Court has also failed to properly appreciate the admission of the non-applicant that his present salary is approximately Rs.82,253/- per month and that, after deductions, he receives a net amount of approximately Rs.46,179/- per month. It is submitted that 6 the arrears received by the applicant were accumulated over a period of about 7ve years and were consumed towards her medical and surgical treatment and, therefore, could not have been treated as a source of regular income or maintenance. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has undergone treatment at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, for blockage in the nerves/arteries and is also suCering from ailments relating to her waist and leg, due to which she is unable to walk properly and requires continuing medical treatment and medicines. The applicant had also submitted the bills towards her medical and medicine expenses to the SECL Management, and the amount so incurred was subsequently reimbursed/adjusted against the salary of the non-applicant. The learned Family Court, however, failed to take into consideration the said recurring medical expenses while determining the quantum of maintenance. A copy of the medical and medicine expense bills has been 7led and marked as Annexure A/5 (colly.). It is thus submitted that, considering the age, health condition, medical requirements and 7nancial needs of the applicant, coupled with the earning capacity of the non- applicant, the amount of Rs.4,500/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court is wholly meagre and inadequate, and the applicant is entitled to a reasonable amount of maintenance, preferably Rs.15,000/- per month. The 7ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are contrary to the evidence and material available on record, suCer from non-consideration of material facts and are therefore perverse and unsustainable in the eye of law. 7 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced by them, the documents brought on record and the overall circumstances of the case, has rightly adjudicated the claim of the applicant and passed a well-reasoned and justi7ed order. The learned Family Court framed speci7c issues with regard to the applicant’s inability to maintain herself and the liability of the non-applicant to maintain her, and thereafter aCorded adequate opportunity to both the parties to lead their respective evidence. The applicant Jaitun Nisha was examined as AW-1 and was subjected to cross-examination, whereas the non-applicant Jamin Hussain was examined as NAW-1, and the learned Court, upon appreciation of their respective statements along with the documentary material available on record, particularly the salary-related documents and other relevant circumstances, assessed the 7nancial capacity of the non-applicant as well as the needs of the applicant. The learned Family Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the applicant is an aged mother and is dependent upon the non- applicant for her maintenance, while simultaneously considering the 7nancial liabilities of the non-applicant towards his wife and children and his other expenses. It is further apparent that the learned Family Court did not mechanically accept the amount claimed by the applicant, but after balancing the needs of the applicant with the earning capacity and existing liabilities of the non-applicant, 8 enhanced the maintenance from Rs.1,500/- per month to Rs.4,500/- per month, with eCect from the date of 7ling of the application, i.e. 12.06.2023. The order passed by the learned Family Court reHects proper consideration of the evidence and circumstances brought on record. Thus, the 7ndings recorded and the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of the material available on record and the impugned order is accordingly found to be just, proper and legally sustainable. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a certi7ed copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan