Tilakram Deshmukh vs Smt. Prabha Deshmukh
2026 Latest Caselaw 190 Chatt

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.

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

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

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

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

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