1 CGHC010099562025 2026:CGHC:35608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 375 of 2025 1 - Smt. Phulkunwar W/o Balgovind Aged About 38 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Namadgiri, Police Station And Tehsil - Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Applicant No. 1 – Wife) 2 - Ku. Heman D/o Balgovind Aged About 18 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Namadgiri, Police Station And Tehsil - Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Applicant No. 2 – Daughter) 3 - Suman D/o Balgovind Aged About 16 Years Minor Being Represented By Mother Smt. Phulkunwar (applicant No. 1), Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Namadgiri, Police Station And Tehsil - Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Applicant No. 3 – Daughter) 4 - Sushma D/o Balgovind Aged About 13 Years Minor Being Represented By Mother Smt. Phulkunwar (applicant No. 1), Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Namadgiri, Police Station And Tehsil - Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Applicant No. 4 - Daughter) ... Applicant(s) versus Balgovind S/o Ramnand Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Satpata, Police Station - Vishrampur, District - Surajpur, Presently R/o Village - PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.13 17:08:19 +0530 2 Phoolkona, Police Station And Tehsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant-Husband) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /0 8 /202 6 1. The applicants have preferred the present criminal revision against the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No.182/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the applicants under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and enhanced the maintenance amount payable to applicant No.1 from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month and to applicants No.3 and 4 from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month each, while discontinuing/rejecting the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month payable to applicant No.2 under the earlier order passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that she had attained majority. 2. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants are the wife and daughters of the Respondent, wherein applicant No.1 is a housewife having no independent source of income, applicant No.2 was studying in Class 12th at the time of filing of the application and is presently pursuing higher education 3 at Chhattisgarh Institute of Research and Technology, while applicants No.3 and 4 are minor daughters pursuing their school education under the care of applicant No.1. The respondent is employed with SECL, Area Baikunthpur and is stated to be earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. It is alleged that the respondent deserted applicant No.1 and their daughters as she had given birth to three daughters and he desired a male child, and thereafter filed a divorce petition against her, which was dismissed. Subsequently, on an application filed by applicant No.1, maintenance was granted vide order dated 16.01.2012, whereby the Respondent was directed to pay Rs.1,600/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.800/- per month to each of applicants No.2 to 4, totaling Rs.4,000/- per month. Thereafter, on an application for enhancement, the maintenance was enhanced vide order dated 03.08.2019 to Rs.4,000/- per month for applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month for each of applicants No.2 to 4, totaling Rs.10,000/- per month. Subsequently, the applicants filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking further enhancement on the ground of increase in the cost of living, prices of essential commodities and educational expenses, and prayed for maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month for applicant No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month for each of applicants No.2 to 4, totaling Rs.18,000/- per month. The Respondent opposed the said application. The learned Family Court, Surajpur, vide order dated 17.02.2025, partly allowed the application and enhanced the 4 maintenance to Rs.4,500/- per month for applicant No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month each for applicants No.3 and 4, totaling Rs.9,500/- per month, while discontinuing the maintenance payable to applicant No.2 on account of her having attained majority. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision/petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants contend that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court in its order dated 17.02.2025 are illegal, contrary to law and the evidence on record, and that the amount of maintenance awarded is inadequate. It is submitted that despite the substantial rise in inflation and the increased cost of food, clothing, education and other essential expenses since the previous order of enhancement passed in 2019, the learned Family Court failed to suitably enhance the maintenance under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and also discontinued the maintenance payable to applicant No.2 upon her attaining majority. He further submits that the applicants have no independent source of income, applicant No.1 is a housewife, applicant No.2 is pursuing higher education at Chhattisgarh Institute of Research and Technology and residing in a hostel for her studies, while applicants No.3 and 4 are minor daughters pursuing their school education under the care of applicant No.1. On the other hand, the Respondent is employed with SECL, Area Baikunthpur and earns more than Rs.50,000/- per month. Therefore, according to the applicants, the amount 5 awarded by the Family Court is neither just nor adequate. He also submits that the applicants further rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, wherein it was held that 25% of the husband's net income would be a just and proper amount to be awarded as maintenance to the wife, and accordingly pray for suitable enhancement of the maintenance amount. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 has partly allowed the application filed by the applicants under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and enhanced the maintenance amount payable to applicant No.1 from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month and to applicants No.3 and 4 from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month each, while discontinuing/rejecting the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month payable to applicant No.2 under the earlier order passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that she had attained majority, holding that the applicants had established an increase in their educational and living expenses, particularly in respect of minor applicants No.3 and 4, and that the respondent's net salary had also increased from Rs.33,443/- in the year 2019 to Rs.48,479/- per month at the time of the present proceedings. The learned Family Court, however, also took into consideration the 6 respondent's existing family responsibilities and loan liability and, accordingly, found the aforesaid enhancement to be just and proper. As regards applicant No.2, the Court found that she had attained majority during the pendency of the proceedings and, therefore, declined to continue the maintenance earlier granted to her. Consequently, the application was partly allowed and the total maintenance was enhanced to Rs.9,500/- per month in favour of applicant No.1 and minor applicants No.3 and 4. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the finding 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti