1 2026:CGHC:4802 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1203 of 2023 Smt. Sarita Kashyap W/o Ramkhilawan Kashyap, Caste- Kurmi, R/o Village- Malda, Tahsil - Hasaud, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir- Champa, C.G., At Present R/o Village- Semariya, Tahsil- Bamhanidih, Civil And Revenue, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Ramkhilawan Kashyap S/o Late Ghasiyaram Kashyap Aged About 48 Years (Teacher Panchayat Grade-2), R/o Village- Malda, Tahsil- Hasaud, Civil And Revenue, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.145/2022 by which the learned Family Court has partly ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.29 15:02:17 +0530 2 allowed the application of the applicant under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance of Rs.5,500/- to the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs, after which the applicant went to the respondent’s matrimonial home and the parties lived together as husband and wife. However, after a short period of peaceful married life, the respondent along with his family members subjected the applicant to cruelty and harassment, due to which she was left at her parental home, and despite repeated expectations, the respondent never came to take her back, compelling the applicant to reside permanently at her parental house. Subsequently, the respondent contracted a second marriage with another lady, whereupon the applicant was constrained to file an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was partly allowed by the learned Court below directing the respondent to pay a maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Thereafter, in the year 2017, the applicant filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance, which was allowed by the Family Court, Janjgir, enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs. 4,000/- per month with the consent of both parties. Later, in the year 2022, after a lapse of more than five years, the applicant again approached the Family Court, Janjgir, under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking further enhancement of maintenance on the grounds that she was 3 suffering from serious illness, had no independent source of income, and that the respondent is a government teacher earning approximately Rs. 55,000/- per month as salary. However, the learned Court below, vide order dated 06.10.2023, partly allowed the application and enhanced the maintenance amount only to Rs. 5,500/- per month, which is inadequate and insufficient to meet the applicant’s basic needs, hence the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District–Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) is bad in law, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the learned Court below has failed to properly appreciate the material available on record and has passed an erroneous order by enhancing the maintenance only by a meagre amount. It is submitted that after a short period of peaceful married life, the respondent along with his family members subjected the petitioner to continuous cruelty and harassment, ultimately leaving her at her parental home and never coming to take her back, and thereafter the respondent contracted a second marriage, which vital facts have been completely ignored by the learned Court below while determining the quantum of maintenance. It is further submitted that earlier, in the year 2017, the applicant had filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was partly allowed and the maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- per month. However, in the subsequent application 4 filed in the year 2022 seeking further enhancement on the grounds that the applicant is suffering from serious illness, has no independent source of income, and that the respondent is a government teacher earning about Rs. 55,000/- per month as salary, the learned Family Court failed to consider these crucial aspects and mechanically enhanced the maintenance only to a nominal extent. It is also submitted that the learned Court below has recorded a wholly erroneous finding that the petitioner is working as a cook in Government Middle School, Semaraiya and earning Rs. 1,500/- per month, whereas in fact the applicant had already left the said work due to her deteriorating physical health prior to passing of the impugned order, and the certificate issued by the Headmaster in this regard has been duly filed with present revision, which has not been properly appreciated, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in the eyes of law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has granted maintenance of Rs.5,500/- per month observing the income, social and economic 5 status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek