1 CGHC010350572026 2026:CGHC:39687 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1174 of 2026 Manjay Chandel S/o Shri Ramsohagi Chandel Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Achholi, P.S. Dhamdha, Tahsil- Dhamdha, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant. Versus 1 - Smt. Summi Chandel W/o Shri Manjay Chandel Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Krishna Nagar, Ramnagar, P.S. Gudiyari, Tahsil And District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Vanshika Chandel D/o Shri Manjay Chandel Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Summi Chandel, R/o Ward No. 18, Krishna Nagar, Ramnagar, P.S. Gudiyari, Tahsil And District- Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - Ku. Himanshi Chandel D/o Shri Manjay Chandel Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Summi Chandel, R/o Ward No. 18, Krishna Nagar, Ramnagar, P.S. Gudiyari, Tahsil And District- Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate. For Respondents : - (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 10/09/2026 1. Heard on admission. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 2. This Criminal Revision is preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the impugned order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the Fourth Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in MCC No.1253/2024 (Smt. Summi Chandel and others vs. Manjal Chandel), whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the wife under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 6,500/- per month. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier, vide order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the learned Family Court in M.C.C. No. 37/2018, the applicant/husband was directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondents, which is being duly paid by him. However, vide the impugned order, the learned Family Court erred in enhancing the amount to Rs. 6,500/-, failing to appreciate that the applicant has no regular source of income and owns merely one acre of agricultural land. He further submits that the yield from the said land is insufficient even to meet his basic daily needs, compelling him to work as labor (Majdoor). It is contended that by ignoring these material aspects, the learned Family Court erroneously enhanced the maintenance amount, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Earlier, vide order dated 04.03.2020, the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in M.C.C. No. 37/2018 directed the applicant to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondents (the wife and minor children). Since then, approximately six years have elapsed. During this period, the cost of living and inflation have substantially increased. Non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are currently aged about 17 and 11 years, respectively, and are school- going children. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to place on record any 3 documentary evidence reflecting his actual monthly or annual income, which indicates that he has suppressed his true earnings. 5. In view of the above considerations, and taking into account the efflux of nearly 6 years before the maintenance was enhanced to Rs.6,500/-, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order. 6. Consequently, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. 7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay