1 2026:CGHC:18946 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 559 of 2026 Baleshwar Pradhan S/o Rupanand Pradhan Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Rikhadadar P.S. Sankra, Tahsil Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Vidhya Pradhan W/o Baleshwar Pradhan Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Khemda, P.S. Basna District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Jasmi Pradhan D/o Baleshwar Pradhan, Aged About 5 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Vidhya Pradhan R/o Village Khemda, P.S. Basna District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - Pranjal Pradhan D/o Baleshwar Pradhan Aged About 3 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Vidhya Pradhan R/o Village Khemda, P.S. Basna District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /04/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 27.03.2026 passed by learned Family Court, Link Court Saraipali, 2 District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.50/2025, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 146(1) of BNSS filed by the respondents and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per month. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the applicant is that the applicant is a private driver and occasionally driving tractors on daily wages, having no fixed or regular source of income; that earlier, by order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the competent Court, maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondents collectively, which the applicant has been paying as per his limited financial capacity; that after several years, the respondents filed an application before the learned Family Court seeking enhancement of maintenance on the ground of increase in cost of living and alleging that the applicant is earning about Rs. 20,000/- per month; that the applicant filed his reply denying the said allegations and specifically stated that his income is uncertain, meagre and insufficient even for his own subsistence; that during the course of evidence, the respondents examined themselves and other witnesses but failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish the income of the applicant or actual expenses, as the school witness did not produce fee receipts or any document to prove educational expenses and another witness admitted that the respondents were residing in a relative’s house with only temporary rent arrangement, that the applicant examined himself and reiterated that he is working on daily wages as a tractor driver, denied earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, 3 and also denied having contracted a second marriage or intentionally neglecting the respondents; that despite absence of any reliable evidence regarding increase in income or change in circumstances, the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,000/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence on record, as the learned Family Court erred in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,000/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month without any credible proof of substantial change in circumstances since the earlier order, which is a mandatory requirement under law; further, the respondents failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish increase in the income of the applicant, and the finding regarding his earning capacity has been recorded merely on conjectures and presumptions, including wrongful reliance on minimum wages despite absence of proof of regular or permanent employment. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the uncontroverted testimony of the applicant that he is a daily wage worker earning a meagre and uncertain income, and also ignored the fact that the respondents did not substantiate the alleged increase in educational and living expenses by producing any supporting documents such as fee receipts; moreover, there was evidence on record suggesting that the respondent-wife is capable of earning and engaged in stitching work, which has not been 4 properly considered. He also submits that the impugned order has been passed mechanically without proper appreciation of evidence and without recording any clear finding regarding the actual income of the applicant, and the enhancement granted is excessive, unreasonable and beyond his financial capacity, causing grave hardship; additionally, the learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No.1 left the matrimonial house without sufficient cause and is residing separately without making any effort to return, and therefore, the maintenance amount awarded is on the higher side and liable to be suitably reduced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 146(1) of BNSS filed by the respondents and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per month, holding that although no documentary evidence was produced to establish the exact income of the applicant, the earlier order was passed in the year 2018 and, after lapse of about eight years, there has been a substantial rise in cost of living and change in circumstances; that the children have grown up and are studying in higher classes, resulting in increased educational and day-to-day expenses, which was supported by the material placed on record, and that even if the applicant is treated as a daily wage labourer, his earning capacity can reasonably be assessed on the basis of prevailing minimum 5 wages, and therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, the existing maintenance was found to be inadequate and required reasonable enhancement while balancing the needs of the respondents and the paying capacity of the applicant. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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