##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:18946

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 559 of 2026

Baleshwar Pradhan S/o Rupanand Pradhan Aged About 34 Years R/o

Village Rikhadadar P.S. Sankra, Tahsil Pithora, District- Mahasamund

(C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Smt. Vidhya Pradhan W/o Baleshwar Pradhan Aged About 39 Years

R/o Village Khemda, P.S. Basna District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

2 - Minor Jasmi Pradhan D/o Baleshwar Pradhan, Aged About 5 Years

Through Legal Guardian Mother Vidhya Pradhan R/o Village Khemda, P.S.

Basna District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

3 - Pranjal Pradhan D/o Baleshwar Pradhan Aged About 3 Years Through

Legal Guardian Mother Vidhya Pradhan R/o Village Khemda, P.S. Basna

District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

24 /04/2026

1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated

27.03.2026 passed by learned Family Court, Link Court Saraipali,

2

District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.50/2025,

whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application

under Section 146(1) of BNSS filed by the respondents and

enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- per month to

Rs.5,000/- per month.

2. Brief facts of the case according to the applicant is that the applicant

is a private driver and occasionally driving tractors on daily wages,

having no fixed or regular source of income; that earlier, by order

dated 10.05.2018 passed by the competent Court, maintenance of

Rs. 2,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondents

collectively, which the applicant has been paying as per his limited

financial capacity; that after several years, the respondents filed an

application before the learned Family Court seeking enhancement of

maintenance on the ground of increase in cost of living and alleging

that the applicant is earning about Rs. 20,000/- per month; that the

applicant filed his reply denying the said allegations and specifically

stated that his income is uncertain, meagre and insufficient even for

his own subsistence; that during the course of evidence, the

respondents examined themselves and other witnesses but failed to

produce any documentary evidence to establish the income of the

applicant or actual expenses, as the school witness did not produce

fee receipts or any document to prove educational expenses and

another witness admitted that the respondents were residing in a

relative’s house with only temporary rent arrangement, that the

applicant examined himself and reiterated that he is working on daily

wages as a tractor driver, denied earning Rs. 20,000/- per month,

3

and also denied having contracted a second marriage or

intentionally neglecting the respondents; that despite absence of any

reliable evidence regarding increase in income or change in

circumstances, the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance

amount from Rs. 2,000/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month. Hence,

the revision.

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

passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary

to the evidence on record, as the learned Family Court erred in

enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,000/- per month to

Rs. 5,000/- per month without any credible proof of substantial

change in circumstances since the earlier order, which is a

mandatory requirement under law; further, the respondents failed to

produce any documentary evidence to establish increase in the

income of the applicant, and the finding regarding his earning

capacity has been recorded merely on conjectures and

presumptions, including wrongful reliance on minimum wages

despite absence of proof of regular or permanent employment. He

further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the

uncontroverted testimony of the applicant that he is a daily wage

worker earning a meagre and uncertain income, and also ignored

the fact that the respondents did not