2026:CGHC:7157 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 412 of 2024 Smt. Kamala Bai Dansena W/o Subran Dansena Aged About 40 Years R/o Vill.

Naughata (Katangpali), P.S. Sariya, Tahsil Baramkela, Dist. Raigarh, (C.G.)

... Applicant versus Subran Dansena S/o Bharat Dansena Aged About 43 Years R/o Village, Indira Nagar Basanpali, Post Office Tamnar, P.S. And Tah. Tamnar, Dist. Raigarh, (C.G.)

... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK SHRIVAS SHRIVAS Date: Order on Board

2026.02.11

10:56:47 +0530

09.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing, for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Harsh Dave, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 and enhance the maintenance amount Rs. 5000/- instead of Rs. 2500/-, in the interest of justice.”

3. Facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with respondent in the year 2005 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the said wedlock, two sons were born, who are presently aged about 17 years and 15 years. After some time of the marriage, the respondent/husband and his family members started physically and mentally harassing the applicant on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry. On this pretext, they continuously pressurized her to bring dowry and also forced her to leave the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the applicant was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance.

4. The learned trial Court issued notice to the respondent and, after hearing both sides, passed an order dated 06.02.2012, granting maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of the applicant.

5. Thereafter, the applicant filed another application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance in the year 2015. The learned Family Court, after hearing both parties, passed an order dated 15.09.2015, enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs.

2,500/- per month.

6. The applicant further submits that, at present, the cost of living and household expenses has substantially increased. The applicant is required to incur expenses towards food, clothing, medicines, medical treatment, electricity bills and other basic necessities. Therefore, the applicant filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking further enhancement of the maintenance amount.

7. The learned Family Court issued notice to the respondent, who filed his reply denying the facts and grounds stated in the application. The learned Family Court thereafter proceeded with the matter and recorded the statements of both parties as well as other witnesses. However, after hearing both sides, the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated

11.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside, and the maintenance amount deserves to be enhanced. He submits that the learned Family Court has ignored the facts and grounds of the case, particularly that at present there has been a substantial increase in the prices of household articles, medicines and clothing, and on this ground alone the maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced. He also submits that the applicant has no independent source of income, and therefore she is entitled to enhancement of maintenance for her livelihood. The respondent/husband owns agricultural land and is also working in a shop, from which he earns sufficient income, and is thus financially capable of payi