Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh v. Upendra Singh S
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:34918 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1061 of 2022 Nini @ Anjubai W/o Upendra Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Binauri Police Station- Palari, Present Address- Shri Radhekrishna Ward, Ward No.11, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil- Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh .. Applicant(s) versus Upendra Singh S/o Balram Singh Thakur Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Binauri Police Station- Palari, Working As Assistant Land Conservation OfÏcer, Bijapur, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh .. Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None present. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22.07.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, 2 Kabirdham (Kawardha), District - Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. M.J.C. No. 66/2021 may kindly be modified and enhanced the maintenance allowance upto Rs. 30,000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that it is an undisputed fact in the present matter that earlier, in Criminal Case No. 136/97 under Section 125 CrPC, an order dated 16.12.1997 was passed in favour of the applicant and his daughter, directing the non-applicant to pay maintenance of ₹400/- per month each to the applicant and her daughter. Subsequently, this amount was revised and enhanced in MJC Case No. 235/2018, Nini alias Anju Bai & Others vs. Upendra Singh, under Section 127 CrPC, by order dated 16.01.2019, whereby the maintenance amount was enhanced to ₹5,000/- per month in favor of applicant No. 1 Nini alias Anju Bai, and ₹4,500/- per month in favor of her daughter Ms. Vandana. According to the present application, the maintenance order concerning Ms. Vandana has come to an end as she has now attained majority. Although the court had earlier granted ₹5,000/- per month to the applicant, due to significant inflation in recent years, this amount is no longer sufÏcient for her sustenance. The applicant further stated that she suffers from ulcer-related health issues, and her unmarried daughter Ms. Vandana is undergoing regular treatment for eye and kidney-related problems, which the non-applicant has refused to support. The entire financial burden of medical treatment is being borne by the applicant herself. She claims to spend approximately ₹15,000 per month on her own treatment, in addition to the 3 expenses incurred for her daughter’s treatment, making the current maintenance of ₹5,000 per month grossly inadequate. It is further alleged that the non-applicant was earning ₹40,000/- per month in 2019, and currently works as an Assistant Soil Conservation OfÏcer in Bijapur, drawing a monthly salary of more than ₹75,000/-. Moreover, the non-applicant owns 40 acres of agricultural land located at Village Binori, House No. 26, R.N.M., Tehsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar, which yields an annual income of approximately ₹20,00,000/-. His mother and brothers also possess separate lands and his mother receives a monthly pension. The applicant emphasized that the non-applicant has no other dependents, as even the obligation of supporting the daughter has now ceased. Hence, the applicant has requested that the previously awarded maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month be enhanced to ₹30,000/- per month. After appreciating the pleadings and hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court enhanced Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 7000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the same, she again preferred a revision for enhancement in the said maintenance amount. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in granting maintenance allowance only Rs. 7,000/- per month from her husband who earns more than Rs. 75,000/- per month as salary as he is posted as Assistant Land Conservation OfÏcer, Bijapur and apart from aforesaid salary he earns about Rs. 20 lacs per annum from his agricultural lands situated at village and further the applicant has no source of income. The learned Family 4 Court failed to appreciate the application of the applicant in proper perspective. The Family Court also erred in observing the medical expenses of the present applicant and her daughter who are suffering from ulcer and eyes and kidney ailment respectively and used to spent Rs. 15,000/- per month for their medical expenses and also failed to appreciate the dearness (enhancement in the price of household articles and daily needs), therefore, the maintenance allowance from Rs. 5,000/- was liable to be enhanced upto Rs. 30,000/- per month maintenance to the present applicant and her daughter. The learned Family Court erred in finding of determination of the fact on various reasons and settled down the alimony in wrong presumption and contents have been wrongly taken into consideration, which is perverse, bad in law and needs modification in the order by enhancing the maintenance allowance up to Rs. 30,000/- per month in favour of the applicant as she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. According, the impugned order deserves to be modified. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 20.09.2022, whereby it has been partly allowed the application and enhanced the maintenance amount in favour of applicant from Rs. 5000/- as awarded previously to Rs. 7000/- per month. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had 5 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 financial 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. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned orders and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned 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. 9. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal