Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:48353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1165 of 2025 Bhimrao Gayakwad S/o Janaklal Gayakward Aged About 36 Years Occupation Beej Production And Owner Shop, R/o Village Raikera Chowk, Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Rajeshwari Gayakwad W/o Bhimrao Gayakward Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Jaamdih, Jajga, Post And Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Devi Laxmi Gayakward D/o Bhimrao Gayakward Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Rajeshwari Gayakward, R/o Village Jaamdih, Jajga, Post And Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Sahil Kumar Gayakward S/o Bhimrao Gayakward Aged About 9 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Rajeshwari Gayakward, R/o Village Jaamdih, Jajga, Post And Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19.09.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: 2 “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 15/2025 and maintain the order dated 01.12.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 89/2022 on the basis of compromise, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Non-applicants (Non-applicant No. 1 being the wife, Non-applicant No. 2, the minor daughter and Non-applicant No. 3, the minor son of the applicant) had earlier filed an application for grant of maintenance, upon which Misc. Criminal Case No. 89/2022 was registered. The learned Family Court, by order dated 01.12.2022, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the Non-applicants. Out of this amount, Rs. 1,000/- each was awarded to Non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, who are studying in Class 8th and Class 6th respectively, towards their nutritional and educational needs, and Rs. 2,000/- per month was awarded to Non-applicant No. 1 (wife). It is submitted that due to rising inflation and the increasing expenses of the growing children, Non-applicant No. 1 has filed an application under Section 146 of the BNSS seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount before the learned Family Court concerned. She has further contended that the applicant is engaged in selling agricultural seeds and articles at Gayakward Krishi Kendra, Village Bagicha near Raikela Chowk, from which he earns around Rs. 1,50,000/- per 3 month. In addition, the applicant is stated to be involved in seed production, from which he earns about Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. It is also alleged that the applicant has rented out a house and is receiving rental income of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Considering the increased school and other expenses of the children, the Non- applicants are now claiming a total maintenance of Rs. 70,000/- per month. 3. After service of notice, the applicant filed his reply to the application under Section 146 of the BNSS, denying the contentions raised by the Non-applicants. He submits that Misc. Criminal Case No. 89/2022 was settled on the basis of compromise and, therefore, the question of enhancement does not arise. He further submits that there has been no rise in inflation justifying such enhancement. The applicant has contended that he is not running any business, but is merely working in the shop of another person, from which he earns Rs. 8,000/- per month. Apart from this, he has no other source of income. Out of this meagre income, he has to maintain his aged parents, who are entirely dependent upon him. It is further submitted that Non-applicant No. 1 herself is running a general store at Village Jajga, Tehsil Mainpat, District Surguja, from which she earns around Rs. 50,000/- per month. Hence, she is financially independent and capable of maintaining herself. The applicant, therefore, prays for rejection of the application for enhancement of maintenance. 4. The learned Family Court, while deciding the application filed under Section 146 of the BNSS, framed four issues and by the impugned 4 order, partly allowed the application of the Non-applicants. The Family Court enhanced the earlier maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- by an additional sum of Rs. 2,500/-, thereby directing the applicant to pay a total amount of Rs. 6,500/- per month as maintenance to the Non- applicants. Hence, this revision. 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 in record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 01.12.2022, whereby it has partly allowed the application and the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicants on the basis of compromise between the parties. Being aggrieved by the same, the non-applicants have preferred an application under Section 146 of BNSS before the learned Family Court for enhancement of maintenance amount and after appreciating the same, the learned Family Court concerned has modified in the judgment dated 01.12.2022 passed by the learned Family Court and enhanced Rs. ₹4000/- to ₹6500/- per month (directed the applicant to pay Rs. 6500/- per month towards maintenance to the Non-applicants). While passing the impugned order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the 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 5 exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the Non-applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the higher 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 concerned, 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal