A High Court will not interfere with a reasoned order of a Family Court regarding maintenance enhancement under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. if the lower court has judiciously exercised its discretion based on the financial capacity of the parties and available evidence.

Order on Board

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 passed by the Learned first Additional, principal Judge, family court, Raipur, in 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.”

RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

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 afÏrmed 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 com