1 CGHC010094652025 2026:CGHC:37130 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 369 of 2025 Gendram Suryavanshi S/o Late Heeralal Suryavanshi Aged About 63 Years Caste- Suryavanshi, R/o Village - Kanai, Police Station And Tahsil - Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), Present Address - Naika Dafai, In Front Of Ram Mandir, Naurozabad Colliery, District - Umariya (M.P.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Uttara Bai Suryavanshi W/o Gendram Suryavanshi Aged About 56 Years Caste - Suryavanshi, R/o Village - Kanai, Police Station and Tahsil- Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 183/2024, whereby the learned Family Court dismissed the application under Section 146 of the BNSS, 2023 for alteration of maintenance allowance from Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month. 2. The facts, in brief, is that it is admitted fact that the applicant is paying monthly maintenance allowance to the non-applicant as awarded by the learned Family Court. The applicant had filed an application under PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.20 15:10:22 +0530 2 Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Family Court, seeking alteration of the maintenance allowance from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.1,000/- per month. It was stated therein that the applicant had retired from service on 30.06.2021 and was receiving a monthly pension of Rs.18,983/-. He further stated that he was suffering from diabetes and hypertension and frequently fell ill. According to the applicant, the pension amount was insufficient to meet his medical expenses and the expenses towards the maintenance of his wife and children. Therefore, he claimed that he was unable to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.4,500/- per month awarded to the non- applicant and was capable of paying only Rs.1,000/- per month. Accordingly, he prayed for modification of the maintenance amount. That, the non-applicant filed her reply opposing the said application and contended that the applicant had filed the application only with an intention to avoid payment of the maintenance amount. It was stated that the non-applicant is an uneducated housewife and that the applicant is receiving a monthly pension of Rs.18,983/-. It was further contended that the applicant is financially capable of paying the maintenance allowance of Rs.4,500/- per month as awarded by the learned Family Court. The non-applicant also stated that the applicant had been employed at Naurozabad Colliery and was earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month as salary. It was further alleged that, upon his retirement, the applicant had received a lump-sum amount of approximately Rs.50 to 60 lakhs. Thus, it was contended that the application had been filed on false grounds with an intention to harass the non-applicant. That, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 23.01.2025, dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Hence, the present revision. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) is bad in law as well as on facts and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings of the applicant, the documents available on record, and the evidence adduced by the applicant and his witnesses. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is suffering from diabetes, hypertension, and other age-related ailments and frequently falls ill. He has retired from service and is presently receiving pension, which is insufficient to meet his medical expenses and the expenses towards the maintenance of his present wife and children. Therefore, he is unable to pay the maintenance amount awarded to the non-applicant by the learned Family Court and is capable of paying only Rs.1,000/- per month. The learned Family Court has wrongly considered the bank statement produced by the applicant, wherein an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- was reflected as income from other sources. In fact, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was a loan obtained from the State Bank of India for payment of maintenance to the non-applicant, whereas the amount of Rs.5,000/- was borrowed from relatives through an online transaction for meeting the applicant's medical expenses. Thus, the said amounts could not have been treated as income of the applicant. The learned Family Court further failed to appreciate that the non-applicant had left the matrimonial home of her own free will and, despite the applicant's best efforts to bring her back and resume cohabitation, she did not return. It is further submitted that after a lapse of approximately 20 years, the non-applicant filed the application seeking maintenance. The learned Family Court also failed to appreciate that the children of the applicant are residing with the non-applicant and are earning members. Further, the applicant owns agricultural land 4 admeasuring approximately 4.30 acres, which is presently in the possession and control of the non-applicant, who is carrying on agricultural activities thereon. There is also a pond situated on the said land, which is being used by the non-applicant for fish farming, from which she is allegedly earning approximately Rs.7 lakhs per annum. The learned Family Court failed to consider the applicant's advanced age and deteriorating physical condition. The applicant has also suffered loss of hearing capacity and is unable to travel or move about frequently, thereby incurring substantial expenses towards his medical treatment and day-to- day needs. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Family Court ought to have considered the applicant's present financial condition, medical expenses, age, and other liabilities while determining his capacity to pay maintenance. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and the maintenance amount deserves to be reduced to Rs.1,000/- per month. 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 pleadings and documents appended thereto. 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 5 while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti