[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Fuleshwari Patel vs Rajendra Kumar Patel on 13 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16903
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 485 of 2026
1 - Smt. Fuleshwari Patel W/o Shri Rajendra Patel Aged About 36 Years
AKHILESH
Digitally
signed by
R/o Ward No. 12, Dallirajhara, Tahsil Doundy, District Balod (C.G.)
KUMAR AKHILESH
DEWANGAN KUMAR
DEWANGAN
2 - Ku. Twinkle D/o Shri Rajendra Patel Aged About 12 Years Minor
Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Fuleshwari Patel, R/o Ward
No. 12, Dallirajhara, Tahsil Doundy, District Balod (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
Rajendra Kumar Patel S/o Vishram Patel Aged About 42 Years R/o
Village Dhorrithema, Tahsil Doundy, District Balod (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
13/04/2026
1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order
dated 28.11.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balod,
District - Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.58/2025,
whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the
application under Section 146 of BNSS filed by the applicants and
enhanced the monthly maintenance amount from Rs.1000 to
Rs.1,500/- per month in favour of applicant No.1 and Rs. 500/- to
Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2, total Rs. 2,500/-
per month payable to the applicants.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the
applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife and applicant No. 2 is
the daughter of the respondent, and their marriage was
solemnized about 15 years ago as per Hindu rites and customs.
Earlier, in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Cr.M.J.C. No.
12/2014), the learned Family Court, Balod, by order dated
09.09.2014, granted maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month (Rs.
1000/- to the wife and Rs. 500/- to the daughter) on the basis of
compromise. The applicants have now filed an application under
Section 146 of the B.N.S.S. seeking enhancement of maintenance
to Rs. 5000/- per month (Rs. 2500/- each), on the ground that due
to passage of about 10 years, inflation has increased, and they
are facing financial hardship in meeting basic needs such as food,
medical care, and education. The applicants have further alleged
that the respondent is a man of sufficient means, earning
approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- annually from agricultural land and a
grocery shop, and is therefore capable of paying enhanced
maintenance. Thereafter, the respondent, in his reply, has denied
these allegations and contended that applicant No. 1 is earning
around Rs. 30,000/- per month by selling vegetables, owns a
permanent house, and is capable of maintaining herself and the
child, and that such facts have been concealed. The respondent
has further stated that he is already paying Rs. 1500/- per month
as per the earlier order, has limited income from agricultural land,
and bears responsibility of maintaining his family and aged
mother. The applicants, however, maintain that the existing
maintenance is insufficient and that their monthly expenses are
approximately Rs. 5000/-. Hence, the present criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the
facts, law and circumstances of the case, and suffers from non-
consideration of material aspects on record. The Court failed to
appreciate that the applicants are facing severe financial hardship
due to rising inflation and are unable to meet their basic needs
such as food, medical care and education. The maintenance
awarded is grossly inadequate and does not correspond with the
present cost of living. He further submits that the learned Family
Court further erred in not properly appreciating that the
respondent had deserted the applicant No. 1 without any sufficient
cause and compelled her to live separately. There is sufficient
material on record to establish such desertion, however, the same
has been overlooked. The Court also failed to consider that no
cogent evidence was produced by the respondent to substantiate
his claims regarding the income of the applicants. He also submits
that the learned Family Court has also failed to adequately
consider the entitlement of applicant No. 2 while awarding
maintenance. The amount granted is on the lower side and
insufficient for sustenance. Therefore, in view of the facts and
circumstances, it is just and proper that the maintenance amount
be enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- per month for the applicants, as they
have no sufficient independent source of income.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with criminal
revision.
5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned
Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 146
of BNSS filed by the applicants and enhanced the monthly
maintenance amount from Rs.1000 to Rs.1,500/- per month in
favour of applicant No.1 and Rs. 500/- to Rs.1,000/- per month in
favour of applicant No.2, total Rs. 2,500/- per month payable to
the applicants, holding that although the applicants failed to
establish by cogent documentary evidence any substantial
increase in the income of the respondent, the lapse of about 10-
12 years since the earlier order and the admitted rise in inflation
and cost of living constitute a material change in circumstances.
The Court further observed that the respondent, being the
husband and father, has a legal as well as moral obligation to
maintain his wife and minor daughter, and accordingly enhanced
the maintenance to a reasonable extent, which is just and proper.
6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the applicant 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.
7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and
is hereby dismissed.
8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the
concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary
information and follow up action.
Sd/-
( Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Akhil
