1 2026:CGHC:8187 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1347 of 2025 Smt. Vijay Laxmi W/o Avinash Soni Aged About 38 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Bhilai 03, P.S. Purani Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. .. Applicant(s) versus Avinash Kumar Soni S/o Murlidhar Soni Aged About 45 Years O3ce Address-Head Constable No. 607 (Telecommunication), Police Headquarter, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mohammed Rashid, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and direct the non-applicant to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to the applicant towards her maintenance, in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are that by order dated 24.12.2021, the learned Family Court granted maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant. Thereafter, in the year 2024, the applicant @led an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 the maintenance amount on account of rising inAation. As the applicant is unable to maintain herself and requires food and medicines, she claimed Rs. 20,000/- per month from the non- applicant. It was also stated that the non-applicant is in government service, owns agricultural land and earns more than Rs. 70,000/- per month. 3. The non-applicant, in his reply @led before the learned Family Court, denied all material averments made in the application except those speci@cally admitted. He submitted that only two years earlier, the maintenance amount payable to the applicant had already been enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- per month, which he has been regularly paying. It was further stated that the applicant has never ful@lled her matrimonial obligations and has not provided her bank account number or a copy of her passbook; otherwise, he would have regularly deposited the maintenance amount directly into her bank account. The non-applicant further submitted that he is working as a Head Constable in the Telecommunication Department at Police Headquarters, Naya Raipur, and is earning a monthly salary of Rs. 58,615/-. He has taken a housing loan of Rs. 45,25,000/- from State Bank of India, Sector-01, Bhilai, for construction of his ancestral house, and is paying monthly installments of Rs. 37,000/-. After paying the said loan installment and Rs. 5,000/- towards maintenance to the applicant, only about Rs. 14,000/- remains for his personal expenses. He also stated that his mother is suDering from heart disease and her medical care is his responsibility. 3 Therefore, he expressed his inability to pay any enhanced maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the applicant’s application. 4. The learned Family Court, after framing the issues and considering the evidence adduced by the applicant along with the documents placed on record, examined the entire material available before it and vide order dated 07.01.2025, partly allowed the application @led under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court enhanced the earlier maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month by Rs. 1,000/-, thereby @xing the total maintenance at Rs. 6,000/- per month. Being aggrieved and dissatis@ed with the said order of enhancement, the present revision has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the material available on record, being based on surmises and conjectures, and is therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that since the very inception of marriage, the non-applicant and his family members subjected the applicant to ill-treatment and harassment, compelling her to reside separately. The learned Family Court further erred in enhancing the maintenance by only Rs. 1,000/- per month, despite the fact that the earlier maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- was @xed about three years ago and considering the prevailing inAation, the applicant is entitled to a reasonable and substantial enhancement. It was not properly appreciated that the non-applicant is employed in the Police Department in a government post, earning a handsome salary, possessing su3cient means and properties and having no 4 substantial liabilities, whereas the minor daughter is residing with the applicant and expenses towards her upbringing and higher education are to be borne by the applicant. The learned Family Court also failed to consider that the applicant, being the legally wedded wife, has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself and her child. The impugned order further overlooks the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, regarding determination of just and reasonable maintenance. The applicant, being the legally wedded wife, is entitled to live with dignity and maintain a standard of living commensurate with that of the non- applicant; however, the learned Court gravely erred in not granting the claimed maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application @led under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Family Court concerned enhanced the earlier maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month by Rs. 1,000/-, thereby @xing the total maintenance at Rs. 6,000/- per month. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, 5 the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of @nancial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the documents appended with revision and @nding recorded by learned Family Court. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in@rmity 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. O3ce is directed to send a certi@ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal