1 2026:CGHC:8098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 422 of 2024 1. Smt. Sheelakali D/o Shri Vijay Kumar Patle Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Beltukri, P.S. Balouda Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 2. Kumari Rishika D/o Shri Shankar Banjare Aged About 14 Years R/o Village Beltukri, P.S. Balouda Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Shankar Banjare S/o Shri Mohan Lal Banjare Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Karhidih P.S. Balouda Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. 2. The present revision has been 9led by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision of the applicants and may kindly be please to quash the order dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Learned Principle Judge Family Court Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (CG) in M.J.C. No. 154/2022; and enhance ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.16 11:16:16 +0530 2 the maintenance amount to the applicants from Rs. 10000/- per month to Rs. 20000/- per month in favour of the applicants, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage of applicant No. 1 with the respondent was solemnized on 23.06.2006 at District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in accordance with Hindu marriage customs and rites. After the marriage, applicant No. 1 started residing with her husband/respondent in her matrimonial (in-laws’) house. Out of the said wedlock, applicant No. 2 was born. Due to cruelty committed by the respondent upon the applicants, they 9led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court. The said application was partly allowed, and the learned trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No. 2. Subsequently, the maintenance amount was enhanced by the learned trial Court to Rs. 4,000/- per month for applicant No. 1 and Rs. 6,000/- per month for applicant No. 2, totaling Rs. 10,000/- per month. Thereafter, the applicants 9led an application before the learned Family Court seeking enhancement of the total maintenance amount from Rs. 10,000/- per month to Rs. 20,000/- per month. 4. The applicants 9led an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court on the ground that applicant No. 2 is studying in a private school, namely Brilliants Public School, in Class 9th. Her admission fee is Rs. 15,000/-, annual tuition fee is Rs. 50,000/-, and transportation charges are Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The applicants are residing in Janjgir in a rented house at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/-. Due to inBation, the prices of essential commodities such as rice, pulses, and clothes have increased, and it has become diCcult for the applicants to 3 survive on Rs. 10,000/- per month. It was further submitted that the salary of the respondent has increased and he is earning approximately Rs. 67,000/- per month. Therefore, the applicants prayed for enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 20,000/- per month. 5. The respondent denied the averments made by the applicants and submitted that he had been hospitalized for treatment and that his second wife was admitted to the hospital and subsequently died due to COVID-19. He further stated that he had borrowed money for her treatment and is presently repaying the loan installments. 6. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) rejected the application of the applicants vide order dated 12.02.2024 solely on the ground that they failed to establish suCcient cause for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the 9ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are perverse, incorrect, illegal, and contrary to the law, facts, circumstances of the case, and the evidence available on record. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly consider the fact that the respondent himself admitted that he is earning Rs. 67,000/- per month. As per several judgments of the Hon’ble High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that approximately 25% of the respondent’s salary may be granted to the wife as maintenance. In the case of Smt. Rashmi Tiwari Vs. Dr. Sanjeev Tiwari, WP (227) No. 5/2018, this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 06.02.2019, held that 25% of the gross income of the respondent/husband can be awarded to the wife as maintenance. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider this settled 4 legal position and thereby committed a legal error. The applicant No. 2 is studying in Class 9th at Brilliant Public School. Her admission fee is Rs. 15,000/-, annual tuition fee is Rs. 50,000/-, and transportation charges are Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The applicants are residing in Janjgir in a rented house at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/-. These material facts were not properly appreciated by the learned Family Court, resulting in a legal error. He also submits that the learned Family Court rejected the application of the applicants solely on the ground that they failed to establish suCcient cause for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 10,000/- per month to Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, due to inBation, the cost of essential commodities such as rice, pulses, and clothing has substantially increased, making it impossible for the applicants to survive on Rs. 10,000/- per month. This crucial aspect was not considered by the learned Family Court, thereby resulting in a legal error. The learned Family Court, Durg (C.G.), wrongly considered that the respondent is paying EMI towards a loan allegedly taken for the treatment of his second wife. In fact, the respondent has taken a personal loan for his own convenience. This fact was not properly examined by the learned Family Court, which amounts to a legal error. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application 9led under Section 127 of the CrPC by the applicants for enhancement of the maintenance amount and has enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 4,000/- for Applicant No. 1 and to Rs. 6,000/- for Applicant No. 2. The Court 5 considered the income, social and economic status of both parties, as well as the current price index, and the award cannot be said to be on the lower side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, and upon perusal of the impugned order and the 9ndings recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality, in9rmity, or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Let a certi9ed copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek