Chattisgarh High Court
Tilakram Deshmukh vs Smt. Prabha Deshmukh on 9 March, 2026
1
Digitally signed
by SAGRIKA
SAGRIKA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date:
2026.03.09
NAFR
18:30:26 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 311 of 2026
1 - Tilakram Deshmukh S/o Naradram Deshmukh, Aged About 45 Years
R/o Village Jogibhat, P.S. And Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod C.G.
... applicant (s)
versus
1 - Smt. Prabha Deshmukh W/o Tilakram Deshmukh, Aged About 40
Years R/o Tanki Maroda, Bambhola Chouk, Risali Bhilai, Tahsil And
District Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For applicant (s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 09.03.2026
1. The present petition has been filed by the applicant/husband against the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge. Family Court, Balod passed in Misc.Cr. Case No. 2 162/2025 whereby the application under Section 146 of BNSS, 2023 for enhancement of maintenance filed by the respondent has been partly allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent/wife was married to the petitioner on 01.06.2005 at Village Mudhiya, District Balod (C.G.) according to Hindu rites and rituals and out of the said wedlock one daughter was born who is now major. The respondent alleged that after a few months of marriage the petitioner started harassing and assaulting her for dowry, due to which disputes arose and a social meeting was held to resolve the matter, after which they resumed living together for some time. However, the petitioner again allegedly threatened and expelled her from the matrimonial house on the allegation of illicit relations, forcing her to reside at her parental home where she also lodged a report at Police Station Dondilohara. Thereafter, despite counseling proceedings she expressed willingness to live with the petitioner but he refused and she later came to know that he had married another woman. Being a housewife with no source of income, she filed a maintenance case claiming Rs.20,000/- per month, wherein by order dated 19.10.2022 the Court awarded Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to the daughter. Subsequently, citing change in circumstances, the respondent filed an application under Section 146 of the BNSS, 2023 for enhancement of maintenance, which was partly allowed 3 by the learned Family Court by the impugned order, leading to the filing of the present petition.
3. It is the case of the applicant/husband that in a proceeding under Section 144 of the BNSS, a total amount of Rs. 2,000/- was granted in favour of the present respondent as monthly maintenance. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Section 146 of the BNSS seeking enhancement of the said maintenance amount before the learned Family Court. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod, after hearing the parties, partly allowed the said application and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 4,500/- per month in favour of the respondent.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs. 4,500/- per month in favour of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law and facts on record, therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent herself voluntarily left the matrimonial home and is residing separately from the company of the petitioner without any sufficient or reasonable cause. The learned Family Court further erred in not considering that the petitioner had already sold his land and out of the said amount deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the daughter as a Fixed Deposit for their future and 4 marriage, which shows the bona fide intention of the petitioner to provide financial support to the daughter. The learned Court below also wrongly presumed the financial capacity of the petitioner on the basis of vague allegations regarding ancestral property and livestock, whereas no cogent or documentary evidence was produced by the respondent to establish the same. In fact, the petitioner is merely doing labour work and earning a meagre livelihood to maintain himself. The learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount without any proper inquiry or evidence regarding the actual income of the petitioner and solely relied upon the oral statements of the respondent, which is against the principles of natural justice, hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the Revision Petition..
6. It is not in dispute that in the year 2022, an amount of total Rs.
2000/- was awarded in favour of the respondent. The original order of maintenance has been passed in the year 2022 and after about 3 years, the application for modification/enhancement of the maintenance amount has been filed by the respondent. The learned Family Court after considering the facts of the case passed the order and enhanced the monthly maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 4500/- per month. The learned Family Court have further considered the monthly income of the applicant, his 5 liability and further considered the income from the agricultural land, and has passed impugned order. The learned family Court has also considered the present cost of living, cost of education to the children and other living expenses for which Rs. 4500/- per month for the respondent is very meagre amount and, therefore, modified/enhanced the monthly maintenance amount.
7. The change of circumstances referred in sub-Section 1 of Section 127 of Cr.P.C./ Section 146 of BNSS is a comprehensive phrase and also includes change of circumstances of husband. The amount of maintenance once fixed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C/ Section 146 of BNSS is not something which can be taken to be blanket liability for all time to come. It is subject to variation on both sides. It can be increased or decreased as per the altered situation. Section 125 of Cr.P.C./ Section 144 of BNSS was conceived to ameliorate the agony anguish and financial suffering of a women who is required to live the matrimonial home, so that some considerable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and children. She required the sufficient amount for need of day to day expenses.
8. The quantum of maintenance always lies with the discretion of the learned Magistrate and the said discretion cannot be interfered with, unless and until it is shown as arbitrary or suspicious. The amount awarded by the learned Family Court by the impugned 6 order dated 20.01.2026 cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive.
9. In view of the above no infirmity is found in the impugned order and, therefore, the present criminal revision is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika