1 CGHC010361052026 2026:CGHC:40974 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1246 of 2026 • Onkar Prasad Pushpakar S/o Shri Sharad Prasad Pushpakar, Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 63, Near Bajrang Chowk, New Mathpuraina Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • Smt. Nisha Pushpakar W/o Onkar Prasad Pushpakar, Aged About 56 Years R/o Lohar Chowk, Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. Prakhar Dutt, Advocate. For Respondent : - (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 21/09/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2026, an application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.02/2026 is allowed. The delay of 44 days in filing the present revision is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.09.22 17:02:56 +0530 2 4. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act 1984 against the impugned order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in MCC No.97/2017 (Smt. Nisha Pushpakar Vs. Onkar Prasad Pushpakar), whereby learned Family Court has allowed the application preferred by the respondent/wife under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.1500/- to Rs.4000/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a registered Advocate, but he does not practice advocacy. He has no source of income. Despite that, vide impugned order, learned Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set- aside. 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that earlier, vide order dated 19.03.2010 passed by this Court in CRR No.406/2008, the monthly maintenance amount granted in favour of respondent/wife was reduced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1500/- per month. After about seven years, respondent/wife filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance amount. 7. Perusal of the impugned order further shows that the applicant had stated before the learned Family Court that he had no source of income and that he was a sick person. However, learned Family Court has observed in the impugned order that he had not filed any document to prove the aforesaid contentions. Rather, the applicant is a registered Advocate in the Raipur Bar. He is a young person aged about 48 years and, despite that, he has concealed his source of income. Further, the said enhancement has been made after about seven years from the date of earlier order. 8. Having considered the present price index and the cost of maintenance, it cannot be said that enhancement of the maintenance amount from 3 Rs.1500/- to Rs.4000/- made by learned Family Court in favour of the respondent/wife is inappropriate or on the higher side. 9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to admit present revision. Hence, the same is dismissed at motion stage. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar