1 2026:CGHC:15110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 433 of 2026 Tularam Lahre S/o Dauram Aged About 65 Years R/o Nawadih Chowk Sipat, Tehsil- Sipat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Shri Tularam Lahre Aged About 54 Years At Present R/o Kumharpara Kachhi Badi In House Of Ramayan Nirala, Jarhabhata District- Bilaspur (C.G.) R/o Ujjawal Nagar, Savtta Vihar, B- 72, N.T.P.C., Sipat, Up- Tahsil Sipat, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Ms. Purnima Lahre D/o Shri Tularam Lahre Aged About 34 Years At Present R/o Kumharpara Kachhi Badi In House Of Ramayan Nirala, Jarhabhata District- Bilaspur (C.G.) R/o Ujjawal Nagar, Savtta Vihar, B- 72, N.T.P.C., Sipat, Up- Tahsil Sipat, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01 /04/2026 1. Heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the instant criminal revision. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2026 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 11.11.2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.02/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and has set-aside the maintenance amount earlier awarded in favour of respondent No.2 (daughter). 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent No. 01 is the wife of the applicant and respondent No. 02 is his daughter. The applicant, who was earlier employed as a Class-IV employee at NTPC Sipat earning Rs. 52,745/- per month, was directed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.02.2020 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 65/2019 to pay maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month to respondent No. 01 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to Respondent No. 02, totaling Rs. 14,000/- per month, which he duly complied with. Subsequently, the applicant retired in November 2020 and is now receiving a pension of approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month, resulting in a substantial reduction of income and making it impossible for him to comply with the earlier maintenance order. It is further the case of the applicant that he has additional liabilities, including maintaining his widowed and paralyzed sister, and that he had 3 earlier purchased land in the name of respondent No. 01, which has since been sold by her and the proceeds thereof are sufficient for the maintenance of the respondents; moreover, he had also provided 50 grams of gold for the marriage of Respondent No. 02. The applicant, therefore, filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking modification of the maintenance order on the ground of material change in circumstances, also stating that respondent No. 02 is now a major and capable of maintaining herself; however, while the learned trial Court partly allowed the application by setting aside the maintenance for respondent No. 02, it declined to reduce the maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month awarded to Respondent No. 01 despite the applicant’s limited pension income. Hence, the criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on a misconception of law and misapprehension of facts, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The trial Court, in gross disregard of settled legal principles, failed to properly appreciate the material change in the financial circumstances of the applicant after his retirement, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. He further submits that the learned trial Court further erred in relying upon the lump sum retirement benefits received by the applicant as a ground to deny modification of maintenance. The said approach is legally untenable, as the retirement amount primarily consists of Provident Fund and other terminal benefits, 4 which are protected in nature and cannot be treated as a regular source of income for the purpose of determining maintenance liability. Moreover, the Court failed to consider that out of the total retirement benefits of approximately Rs. 40 lakhs, substantial amounts were utilized towards repayment of home loan and land loan, which were essential liabilities. He also submits that the trial Court also failed to consider the material fact that the applicant had earlier purchased land in Gulab Nagar, Mopka, in the name of respondent No. 01, which has since been sold by her and the proceeds thereof have been deposited in a bank account, the interest from which is sufficient for her maintenance. Additionally, the applicant had already provided 50 grams of gold for the marriage of their daughter, and it was mutually agreed between the parties that the said assets would be utilized for the said purpose, which further demonstrates the applicant’s bona-fide conduct. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and has set-aside the maintenance amount earlier awarded in favour of respondent No.2 (daughter), holding that respondent No.2/daughter has attained majority and is not entitled to maintenance. The Family 5 Court, however, concluded that despite the applicant’s retirement and reduced pension income, no sufficient ground is made out for reduction of maintenance payable to respondent No. 01, primarily observing that the applicant had received a lump sum amount at the time of retirement. Accordingly, the application was partly allowed only to the extent of respondent No. 02, while maintaining the maintenance awarded to respondent No. 01. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil