1 2026:CGHC:4430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 186 of 2024 Smt. Sharda Jangade W/o Hemant Kumar Jangade Aged About 46 Years R/o Belar, Tahsil Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Hemant Kumar Jangade S/o Kamalsingh Jangade Aged About 45 Years R/o Bhendra, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh At Present Posted As Teacher At Govt. High School Ghatula, Post Ghatula, Tahsil Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Laxmi Soni, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Laxmi Soni, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Kunal Das, learned counsel appearing for the Non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and modify / KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 enhance impugned maintenance order dated 02.12.2023 passed by the learned Family Court Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 99/2023 and also may kindly be granted maintenance amount sought by the applicant in application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for seeking granting maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had 昀椀led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court concerned. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and the non-applicant solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals, and thereafter they lived together peacefully as husband and wife. The case of the applicant is that initially the relationship between the applicant and the non- applicant was cordial, however, after some time of marriage, the non-applicant started harassing and mentally torturing the applicant on account of demand of dowry. The non-applicant used 昀椀lthy language and subjected the applicant to physical assault. Due to such cruel acts of the non-applicant, the applicant was continuously harassed and mentally tortured and she is now residing separately in a rented house. The applicant has no independent source of income. Her monthly expenses towards domestic needs, medical treatment, etc., amount to approximately Rs. 25,000/-. The applicant is unable to maintain herself. It is further submitted that the non-applicant is working as a Teacher in the Education Department and is earning approximately Rs. 74,000/- per month as salary. Hence, the 3 applicant 昀椀led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the non-applicant. The non-applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and denied the allegations made by the applicant. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court granted maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the applicant. Being aggrieved by the inadequate maintenance order dated 02.05.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, the applicant 昀椀led an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 99/2023, seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month. 4. The learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and impugned order and material available on record, passed the order on 02.12.2023, whereby enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.8,000/- per month to Rs.9,500/- per month on the premise that the in昀氀ation rate has gone up and therefore, the applicant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 9,500/- Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and material available on record. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate that the applicant was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to the cruelty and harassment in昀氀icted by the non-applicant, who has also contracted a second marriage, causing the applicant severe mental and physical su昀昀ering. The applicant has no independent source of income and is 4 residing separately, facing considerable hardship in meeting her monthly domestic and medical expenses, which are approximately Rs. 25,000/-. Despite this, the learned Family Court granted only Rs. 9,500/- per month as maintenance, which is grossly inadequate for her livelihood. The Court further failed to consider that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, and the non-applicant is employed in the Education Department, earning about Rs. 74,000/- per month, and is 昀椀nancially well capable of paying the enhanced maintenance sought. The 昀椀ndings regarding the income and 昀椀nancial capacity of the non-applicant have not been properly appreciated, and relevant material on record has been overlooked. The applicant has not suppressed any material facts, whereas relevant facts have been concealed by the non-applicant. In these circumstances, the inadequate maintenance awarded has resulted in grave injustice, and unless the amount is suitably enhanced, the applicant will face serious di昀케culty in sustaining herself. Hence, in the interest of justice, the maintenance amount deserves to be enhanced. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and and material 5 available on record, passed the order on 02.12.2023, whereby enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.8,000/- per month to Rs.9,500/- per month on the premise that the in昀氀ation rate has gone up and therefore, the applicant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 9,500/- While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, 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 昀椀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. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the 昀椀ndings recorded by the learned Family Court concerned, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. O昀케ce is directed to send a certi昀椀ed copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal