Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1150 of 2018 Master Gourav Banjare S/o Santosh Banjare Aged About 7 Years Through Guardian , Mother -Smt. Indu Banjare , W//o Santosh Banjare, Aged 31year Occupation House Wife, R/o Somni Police Station Somni, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Santosh Banjare S/o A.D. Banjare Aged About 40 Years Occupation R/o Vivekanand Colony Bajardand, Jashpur Nagar, Higher Secondry Scsool ,jashpur Nagar District -Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
the respondent is in profession of teaching, it cannot be disputed that any grade of teacher at present earning salary minimum is Rs.40,000/- in the State of Chhattisgarh and the Court failed to consider that, further the Family Court failed to consider that the price index has increased since 2014 till now. Lastly, the respondent himself in his reply has stated that his salary is Rs.40,000/- per month and also having extra source of income of Rs.50,000/- per annum, then there is no need to prove the salary or income of the respondent by the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and 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. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant by enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to 5,500/- and directed the pay Rs.5,500/- per month to applicant towards maintenance observing that the respondent’s mother, Indu Banjare, stated in her affidavit that a previous court order dated March 20, 2014, had directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000 per month as maintenance. At the time of filing the maintenance application, her son Gaurav was only one and a half years old and did not attend school. Currently, Gaurav is studying in Class 3 at Sanskar City International School, Thakur Tola, Rajnandgaon, where the annual fee is Rs.50,000. The respondent’s mother stated that the respondent requires Rs.4,500 per month for school fees, Rs.1,000 for milk, and approximately Rs.6,000 for medicines and other expenses, totaling Rs.11,500 per month. The applicant is working as a higher-grade teacher and currently earns a monthly salary of Rs.55,000. Previously, when the respondent’s mother filed a maintenance applicant, the applicant’s salary was Rs.16,000 per month. The respondent’s mother requested an increase in maintenance to Rs.15,000 per month, considering the increased expenses and the applicant’s higher salary, increased cost of living, the Family Court found it 5 justifiable to increase the maintenance amount. Although there is no conclusive evidence of the applicant’s current income, it cannot be ignored that Rs.5,000 is insufficient for the respondent’s needs. The applicant mentioned that he has the burden of supporting his parents and younger brother, but he did not provide any documentary evidence to support this claim. Considering the applicant’s increased salary over the past four years, the Family Court came to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to increase the maintenance amount to Rs.5,500 per month. 8. Considering the submissions 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil 6
Arguments
Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Roop Naik, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.09.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, 2 District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.155/2015, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127(1) of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant by enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to 5,500/- and directed to pay Rs.5,500/- to applicant towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that earlier the applicant had preferred an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, in which maintenance of Rs.5,000/- was awarded vide order dated 20.03.2014, thereafter the applicant had preferred an application under Section 127 of CrPC for enhancement of the maintenance amount on the ground that applicant is pursuing his study in Sanskar City International School, Thakurtola, Rajnandgaon at Class-II and the fees of the said school is Rs.50,000/- further expenses on school is of Rs.4,500/- per month for diet Rs.1,000/- per month and on medicine Rs.6,000/- which comes in total of Rs.11,500/- per month. The mother of the applicant is house wife and have no source of income, whereas the respondent is a teacher in High School getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. On the basis of above circumstances the applicant is unable to live his livelihood on the basis of maintenance awarded earlier of Rs.5,000/-. The applicant has prayed for enhancement of the maintenance amount to Rs.15,000/- per month and the Family Court has 3 enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.5,500/- per month only. Being aggrieved by the same present criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the learned Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.5,500/- per month only, which absolutely arbitrary, unsustainable and on lower side, further, the earlier maintenance order was passed in the year 2014 when the applicant was aged about 1-1/2 years and presently, applicant is aged about 7 years and is attending school, which is much expensive for the mother of the applicant. He further submits that the Family Court has admitted that there must be increase in the salary of the respondent and also admitted that