1 CGHC010345652026 2026:CGHC:44821-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 890 of 2026 Bhuvneshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Sukhdev Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Chhirra, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (At Present District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh) ... Petitioner versus Smt. Rampyari W/o Bhuvneshwar Prasad Sahu, D/o Khorbahara Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chhirra, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, At Present Residing At Village Turma, Tahsil Nawagarh, Police Station Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Srishtee Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Trevenee Shankar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Order on Board 16.10.2026 1. This MCC application has been filed under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Rule 87 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.10.16 18:27:38 +0530 2 2007, for variation and reduction of the order of permanent alimony dated 07.04.2025 passed in FA(MAT) No.192/2022. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application as well as the material available on record. 3. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that this Court had duly considered the applicant’s/petitioner’s income, assets, liabilities and responsibility towards the two children while determining the amount of permanent alimony and had also granted him the facility of payment in two equal instalments, with six months’ time for payment of each instalment. The grounds now raised by the applicant substantially reiterate the financial circumstances which were already considered at the time of passing the impugned judgment. No material change in circumstances subsequent to the said judgment has been demonstrated so as to warrant variation of the amount or further modification of the payment schedule. 4. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no sufficient ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Accordingly, the MCC application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Prakash