1 CGHC010037902025 2026:CGHC:34264 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 200 of 2025 1 - Smt. Bhagwati Madile W/o Shri Ashish Madile Aged About 32 Years R/o Police Station Quarters House No. 4 Dharsinwa District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Minor Trishant Madile S/o Shri Ashish Madile Aged About 11 Years Through His Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Bhagwati Madile R/o Police Station Quarters House No. 4 Dharsinwa District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Shri Ashish Madile S/o Shri Tirtharam Madile Aged About 38 Years R/o Gram Mutpuri P.S. Nandghat Tehsil Saja District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 4led by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that thus Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount awarded in the order dated RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 27/11/2024 (Annexure A-2) from Rs 12000 to Rs 23000 per month as prayed in the application prayed before the learned family court Raipur District Raipur in the interest of Justice” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicants had earlier instituted proceedings under Sections 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance from the respondent. The learned Family Court, vide order dated 08.07.2022 passed in proceedings under Section 127 of the Code, directed the respondent to pay a total sum of Rs.12,000/- per month towards maintenance, i.e., Rs.6,000/- per month each to applicant No. 1 (wife) and applicant No. 2 (minor child). Subsequently, owing to the substantial increase in the cost of living, in=ation, and the enhanced day-to-day expenses incurred for the maintenance and upbringing of the minor child, the applicants preferred a fresh application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, seeking further enhancement of the maintenance amount. During the course of the said proceedings, it was speci4cally pleaded that the 4nancial condition of the respondent had considerably improved, as he was serving as a Patwari in the Revenue Department on compassionate appointment and was drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs.57,750/- with a net monthly salary of Rs.52,950/-. It was further asserted that, apart from his salaried employment, the respondent is also a joint holder of approximately seven acres of agricultural 3 land, from which he earns an annual income of about Rs.1.50 to Rs.2.00 lakhs. However, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, vide the impugned order dated 27.11.2024, only partly allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards the maintenance of applicant No. 2 till he attains the age of majority, the said amount being payable to applicant No. 1 on behalf of the minor child. Being dissatis4ed with the inadequacy of the enhancement granted despite the admitted increase in the income and 4nancial capacity of the respondent, the applicants have preferred the present criminal revision petition challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order dated 27.11.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts, evidence available on record, and the settled principles governing enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the substantial increase in the cost of living, in=ation, and the educational and day-to-day expenses of Applicant No. 2, who is a minor child presently studying in Class V and is wholly dependent upon Applicant No. 1 for his maintenance, education, and other necessities. It is further submitted that Applicant No. 1 is a homemaker having no independent source of income and is solely responsible for taking care of the minor child. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court failed to assign due weight to the undisputed 4 4nancial status of the respondent, who is serving as a Patwari in the Revenue Department and is drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs.57,750/- with a net salary of Rs.52,950/-, besides earning additional income from approximately seven acres of jointly held agricultural land, yielding an annual income of around Rs.1.50 to Rs.2.00 lakhs. It is also contended that despite possessing suCcient 4nancial resources, the respondent has con4ned his responsibility only to payment of the court-directed maintenance and has neither actively participated in the upbringing of the minor child nor extended any 4nancial assistance towards his education or other essential needs. It is further argued that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the signi4cant change in circumstances, including the increase in the income of the respondent and the growing educational and living expenses of the minor child, constituted suCcient grounds for a substantial enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the Code. It is, therefore, submitted that the enhancement granted by the learned Family Court is wholly inadequate and disproportionate to the 4nancial capacity of the respondent and the genuine needs of the applicants, rendering the impugned order liable to be suitably modi4ed by enhancing the maintenance amount. 4. 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 Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.). 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, 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-rereasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The learned Family Court has taken into account the previous maintenance order dated 08.07.2022, the subsequent change in circumstances pleaded by the parties, the increase in the cost of living and the growing needs of the minor child, as well as the 4nancial capacity, income, and liabilities of the respondent. The Court has also duly considered the evidence regarding the respondent’s employment as a Patwari in the Revenue Department, his salary particulars, and the material relating to his agricultural holdings, and, upon an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, has arrived at a just and balanced conclusion. Having found that there was a suCcient change in circumstances warranting enhancement of maintenance, the learned Family Court rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and partly allowed the application by directing payment of an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the minor child till he attains majority. The 4ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and settled principles governing enhancement of maintenance. 6 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 4nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in4rmity 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 certi4ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan