1 CGHC010362352026 2026:CGHC:40966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1240 of 2026 • Tulshiram Baghel S/o Hiralal Baghel Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Badhedharaur, Tahsil Lohandiguda, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • Smt. Ashadevi Baghel W/o Tulsiram Baghel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Lohandiguda, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : - (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 21/09/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act 1984 against the impugned order dated 25.07.2026 passed by learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar in MJC No.39/2026 (Smt. Ashadevi Baghel Vs. Tulshiram Baghel), whereby learned Family Court has partly allowed the application preferred by the RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.09.22 10:44:07 +0530 2 respondent/wife under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/- per month. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant retired from his service more than 12 years ago. Referring to Annexure R-2, pension /family pension payment order dated 27.06.2014, he submits that in the year 2014, the family pension of the applicant was fixed to the Rs.4,657/- only. He has no other source of income. Rather, he is 59-year-old person and is suffering from various ailments. He further submits that he incurs monthly expenses of Rs.15,000/- for his own livelihood and treatment. Despite there being no sufficient means of income available to the applicant/husband, learned Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount. Hence, it is prayed that the present revision may be admitted for hearing. 4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the applicant had neither filed his pension-related documents nor any document pertaining to his other source of income. However, he himself stated before the Family Court that he incurs monthly expenses of Rs.15,000/- for his own livelihood and treatment. This fact itself shows that the applicant has not disclosed his complete source of income. Further, he has filed Annexure R-2, i.e., the pension/family pension payment order, which shows that his family pension was fixed at Rs.4,657/- on 27.06.2014. However, he has not filed any document to show the exact amount of family pension, including D.A., that he is presently receiving. 5. Having considered the aforesaid non-disclosure of his source of income and further considering the fact that maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month was granted in favour of the respondent/wife in the year 2015, and that after about 11 years, aforesaid enhancement has been made by learned Family 3 Court, this Court is of the considered view that, keeping in view the price index and cost of living at present, enhancement of maintenance from Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/- vide impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the impugned order is upheld. Consequently, the present Criminal Revision is dismissed at the motion stage. 6. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar