Rita Jalan vs Amit Jalan
2026 Latest Caselaw 175 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Rita Jalan vs Amit Jalan on 27 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                  1




                                                                 2026:CGHC:10318
                                                                                  NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                        CRR No. 306 of 2026

            Rita Jalan W/o Shri Amit Jalan Aged About 40 Years R/o Khatu Shyam
            Mandir Road, Near Homeopathic College, Raju Badi, Ram Kund, Raipur,
            Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                            ... Applicant
                                               versus
            Amit Jalan S/o Shri Gopal Prasad Jalan Aged About 45 Years R/o 27
            Away Guha Road, Second Floor, Room No. 205, Near Post Office, Don
            Bosco School, Liluha, Howra, West Bengal, Pin 711204.
                                                                         ... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.02.2026

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the

following prayer:

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court

be pleased to call for entire records of the

case and modify the impugned order

Annexure P-1 i.e. the order dated 28/01/2026 RAHUL DEWANGAN passed by the Learned first Additional, Digitally signed by principal Judge, family court, Raipur, in RAHUL DEWANGAN

M.C.C. No.113/2021 and modify & enhance

the amount of maintenance amount in favour

of the applicant from the date of application

i.e. 04/02/2021 in the interest of justice."

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant and respondent

are legally wedded spouses, their marriage having been solemnized

on 12.12.2013, and soon thereafter the applicant was allegedly

subjected to continuous mental and physical cruelty and

harassment for dowry to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- by the

respondent and his family members, compelling her to reside

separately since 09.02.2015. The applicant initially filed an

application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court,

Raipur, in MJC No. 145/2015, which was partly allowed vide order

dated 02.05.2019 granting maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month.

Subsequently, on account of change in circumstances and increase

in the respondent's income, the applicant preferred an application

under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement to Rs. 60,000/-

per month; however, the learned Family Court enhanced the

amount only by Rs. 4,000/- and fixed maintenance at Rs. 19,000/-

per month from the date of order. In parallel proceedings under the

Domestic Violence Act, the learned JMFC, Raipur, vide order dated

06.03.2024, awarded Rs. 7,000/- per month, which was affirmed in

appeal and revision up to this Hon'ble Court. The applicant

contends that the respondent, who is working as a Senior

Manager/Branch Manager in Axis Bank, Kolkata, has concealed his

actual income despite directions in Rajneesh v. Neha, and that his

income, as per ITR records, is substantially higher than disclosed. It

is further contended that the applicant is a non-working housewife

suffering from ailments and financial hardship, and that the

impugned order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the learned Family

Court enhancing the maintenance to Rs. 19,000/- per month. Being

aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present

revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order

dated 28.01.2026 is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside, as

the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the

material evidence regarding the respondent's actual income and

financial capacity. It is submitted that the respondent has been a

salaried employee since 2007 and is presently working as a Senior

Manager in Axis Bank, Kolkata, earning substantially higher income

than disclosed, as reflected from his Income Tax Returns, yet he

has deliberately withheld Form-16 and current ITR documents

despite directions in Rajneesh v. Neha. The courts below have

further erred in granting only a meagre enhancement of Rs. 4,000/-

and fixing maintenance at Rs. 19,000/- per month from the date of

order instead of from the date of application i.e. 04.02.2021,

ignoring the applicant's long-pending litigation since 2015, her

continuous medical ailments requiring substantial monthly

expenditure, and her residence in a rented accommodation at

Raipur. It is contended that the applicant is a non-earning lady

dependent upon maintenance, and the amount awarded is grossly

inadequate to maintain her dignity and standard of living

commensurate with the respondent's status. It is further submitted

that the respondent is misleading the Court by projecting inflated

figures of total maintenance, whereas in reality only Rs. 19,000/- per

month is being paid, causing severe financial hardship to the

applicant; hence, the maintenance amount deserves suitable

enhancement in accordance with law.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the

pleadings and documents appended thereto.

5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the

learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the pleadings,

evidence and material available on record and has passed a

reasoned and well-considered order dated 28.01.2026. The learned

Court, after taking into account the earlier order passed under

Section 125 Cr.P.C., the subsequent application under Section

127(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground of change in circumstances, and the

rival submissions regarding the income and liabilities of the

respondent, has exercised its discretion judiciously in enhancing the

maintenance from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 19,000/- per month. The

learned Court has duly considered the status of the parties, the

financial capacity of the respondent, and the needs of the applicant,

and has granted enhancement in accordance with settled principles

governing maintenance.

6. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to

be and is hereby dismissed.

8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court

concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Rahul Dewangan