Sikkim High Court
Santosh Kumar Chettri (Kharka) vs Kamlesh Chettri on 28 October, 2025
Author: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
Bench: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl. Rev. P. No. 01 of 2025
Santosh Kumar Chettri (Kharka),
S/o Late Gar Singh Kharka,
R/o 2nd Mile Turning,
P/o Tarku, P.S. Temi,
District Namchi, 737126.
..... Revisionist
Versus
Kamlesh Chettri,
W/o Shri Santosh Kumar Chettri (Kharka),
R/o Malaguri,
Siliguri, West Bengal, 734001.
.....Respondent
Application under Section 397 and 401 read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(Order dated 08.04.2024 and 29.04.2024 passed by the learned
Family Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 03 of 2023 allowing
enhancement of Maintenance.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. Abhinav Kant Jha, Advocate for the Revisionist.
Mr. Pramit Chettri and Mr. Abhishek Tamang,
Advocates for Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 28.10.2025
Date of Order : 28.10.2025
O R D E R (ORAL)
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been
filed by the revisionist seeking to assail two orders passed
Santosh Kumar Chettri (Kharka) vs. Kamlesh Chettri
by the learned Family Court in an application for
enhancement of maintenance under section 127 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
2. The first Order dated 08.04.2024 notes the
status of pension drawn by the revisionist. It also notices
that the previous Order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the
learned Family Court under section 125 Cr.P.C. had
directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- as
monthly maintenance. Thereafter keeping in mind "present
market rate, health condition, the age of the petitioner and
retirement gratuity received" by the revisionist the learned
Family Court directed the revisionist to pay Rs.14,000/- as
monthly maintenance from May, 2024 to the respondent to
be deducted from his pension. After deciding the quantum
of maintenance allowance to be paid by the revisionist (i.e.
Rs.14,000/- per month) the learned Family Court sought
further information and on receipt thereof vide the second
impugned Order dated 29.04.2024 directed the revisionist
to pay a further sum of Rs.2 lakhs within three months to
the respondent. This was done, again "keeping in mind the
present market rate, health condition, the age of the
petitioner and retirement gratuity" received by the
revisionist.
Santosh Kumar Chettri (Kharka) vs. Kamlesh Chettri
3. A perusal of section 127 of the Cr.P.C. reflects
that the Court is empowered to alter "the monthly
allowance" on proof of a change in the circumstances. The
impugned order does not give sufficient reasoning as to
how the learned Family Court was satisfied about the
change in circumstances to alter the monthly allowance to
Rs.14,000/-. Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. permits alteration
of the monthly allowance only. The impugned orders does
not state or reason whether the direction to the revisionist
to pay Rs.2 lakhs from his retirement benefits was also part
of the monthly allowance.
4. The learned counsel for the revisionist also
draws the attention of this Court to the written response
filed by the revisionist to the application under section 127
of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent drawing court's
attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh
vs. Neha & Anr.1 wherein certain directions were passed
with regards to maintenance applications. It is his
submissions that the learned Family Court neither
considered the direction nor followed it.
5. The impugned orders also do not reflect that the
learned Court considered the directions passed by the
Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) in the facts of this case.
1 (2021) 2 SCC 324
Santosh Kumar Chettri (Kharka) vs. Kamlesh Chettri
6. In such view of the matter this Court is of the
view that the two impugned Orders dated 08.04.2024 and
29.04.2024 must be set aside and the matter be remanded
for re-consideration on all points to ensure justice is done.
It is ordered accordingly. As an interim measure, the
revisionist is directed to continue to pay Rs.14,000/- per
month to the respondent until a final decision is taken by
the learned Family Court on the application filed by the
respondent keeping in mind all the legal parameters
required to be considered.
7. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed to the
above extent and the impugned orders set aside. The
application under section 127 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the
respondent is directed to be re-heard and disposed of as
per law by the learned Family Court, at Namchi.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan )
Judge
Approved for reporting : Yes
Internet : Yes
to/
