IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7521 of 2016 SMT. SUKHIYA BAI AND OTHERS Versus BABULAL Appearance:

Shri Rajiv Jain - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Keher Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, District Guna, whereby Criminal Revision No. 115/2015 preferred by the petitioners was dismissed, affirming the order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court in Misc. Case No.

13/2013.

By the said order, the learned Trial Court awarded maintenance of ₹1,500/- per month in favour of the petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance, preferred a revision which came to be dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the courts below have committed a jurisdictional error in awarding a meagre amount of maintenance, which is wholly insufficient for the livelihood of the wife and minor children. It is contended that petitioner No.1 is suffering from mental illness and is under medical treatment, while petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are school-going children.

It is further submitted that the respondent possesses agricultural land and has sufficient means, which were not properly appreciated by the courts below. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders, as the same are arbitrary and against the provisions of law.

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and submitted that the learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and the financial capacity of the respondent, has rightly fixed the amount of maintenance. It is argued that no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error has been committed by the courts below so as to warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

This Court has carefully perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is manifest illegality, abuse of process of law, or gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court does not act as a second appellate court while exercising such jurisdiction.

In the present case, the learned Trial Court has assessed the evidence led by both parties and fixed the maintenance at ₹1,500/- per month. The Revisional Court has reappreciated the material on record and found no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court.

This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be substituted merely because a different view is possible.

However, it is made clear that the law provides a remedy for enhancement of maintenance if there is a change in circumstances. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent court for enhancement of maintenance in accordance with law, considering the present financial conditions and needs.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

It is, however, observed that the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh application before the competent court for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., if so advised, and the said application shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law, without being influenced by the present order.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)

JUDGE neetu