Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39158 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1292 of 2022 1 - Rajkumari W/o Anil Magre Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 9 Near Jaiswal Hotel Bodla, P.S. And Teshil - Bodla, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mahi D/o Anil Magre Aged About 13 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Rajkumari, R/o Ward No. 9, Near Jaiswal Hotel Bodla, P.S. And Tehsil Bodla District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bhumi D/o Anil Magre Aged About 10 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Rajkumari, R/o Ward No. 9 Near Jaiswal Hotel Bodla, P.S. And Tehsil Bodla District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicants Anil Magre S/o Juggudas Aged About 43 Years Occupation - Siksah Karmi Class - 2 Sikshak Panchayat, Govermnent School Bazar Charbatha, Block - Lohara R/o Vijay Choudharys House Near Forest Division OfÏce Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.08.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 18.10.2022 (Annexure A/1) and enhance the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs 60,000/- passed by learned Judge, Family Court Kabirdham, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant are legally wedded husband and wife, and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are their daughters. Alleging domestic violence by the non- applicant, the applicant No.1 has been living separately with the children, who are in her custody. She filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the earlier maintenance amount of Rs. 5,500/- (granted vide order dated 17.01.2017), and claimed Rs. 30,000/- per month. The learned Family Court, Kabirdham, after hearing both sides, enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 9,500/- per month vide order dated 18.10.2022. The applicant, being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the enhanced amount, has preferred the present revision. It is submitted that despite being a single mother bearing all financial responsibilities including education, healthcare, and daily needs of the children amidst rising inflation, the maintenance awarded does not sufÏce. It is also stated that the financial condition of the applicant has deteriorated, while the non-applicant, being in government service, 3 is financially stable yet fails to fulfill his obligations. The learned Family Court erred in appreciating the evidence and passed the impugned order without adequately considering the present needs and hardships of the applicants. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the respondent could not appear before the Mediation Centre for mediation in compliance with this Court’s order dated 15.07.2025, as he is presently in jail in connection with a case registered under the POCSO Act. The respondent is the husband of applicant No.1 and father of applicants No.2 and 3. In view of the respondent’s custody, the mediation between the parties has failed, as per the report of the Mediation Centre. He further submitted that the Family Court has erred in awarding an insufÏcient enhanced maintenance amount of Rs. 9,500/- per month vide order dated 18.10.2022 without proper appreciation of the applicant’s current financial hardship and the significantly improved income of the non-applicant. It was argued that despite being a single mother solely responsible for the upbringing and education of two school-going daughters, the applicant is not financially capable of maintaining a dignified standard of living due to rising inflation, educational expenses, and the increased cost of basic necessities. The Family Court failed to consider the drastic change in circumstances, including the non- applicant’s present salary of Rs. 69,129/- per month as a government employee (Shikshakarmi Varg-1), his additional income from private tuition and rental earnings from his personal vehicle, collectively amounting to approximately Rs. 1,30,000–1,35,000/- 4 per month, which clearly establishes his capacity to pay a higher amount. Reliance was placed on Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC 83) and Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari [(1970) 3 SCC 129], wherein it was held that a substantial increase in the husband’s income constitutes a valid ground for enhancement of maintenance and that 25% of the husband’s net salary may be considered just and proper. Counsel further referred to Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan [(2019) 12 SCC 303] and Khushboo Sachdeva v. Varun Sachdeva (CR No. 1022/2019, Chhattisgarh HC) to emphasize that maintenance must be aligned with the husband’s living standard. It was submitted that the school fees of the daughters amount to Rs. 77,100/-, as evidenced by documents filed as Annexure-A/3 and A/4, and the applicant is under severe financial stress and depression, being unemployed and unable to meet even basic educational obligations due to the meager maintenance. It was also contended that the non-applicant, despite his high standard of living, ownership of three vehicles, and secure employment, is deliberately avoiding his moral and legal responsibilities towards his wife and children, while cohabiting with
Decision
another woman. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the maintenance amount ought to be enhanced appropriately, considering the applicant’s genuine need and the non-applicant’s capacity to pay. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, 5 Family Court, Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant No.1 and the respondent are legally wedded spouses, and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are their daughters. Alleging domestic violence by the respondent, the applicant No.1 has been residing separately along with the minor children, who remain in her custody. In such circumstances, she filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,500/- per month, which was earlier granted by order dated 17.01.2017, and claimed Rs. 30,000/- per month in view of the increased financial needs. Upon due appreciation of the pleadings, submissions, and material available on record, the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, after considering the respondent’s income and the dependents’ requirements, rightly enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 9,500/- per month vide order dated 18.10.2022. The Court exercised its judicial discretion judiciously, and no error or illegality is found in the reasoning or conclusion reached. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the facts that the respondent could not appear before the Mediation Centre pursuant to this Court’s order dated 15.07.2025, as he is presently in judicial custody in connection with a case registered under the POCSO Act. The respondent, being the husband of applicant No.1 and father of applicants No.2 and 3, 6 could not participate in the mediation proceedings due to his incarceration, and as a result, the mediation has failed, which is confirmed by the report of the Mediation Centre. In view of these facts and circumstances, 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan