Hamida Begum vs Mohd. Yasin

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.

This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 12-08-2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) in MCC No.98/2023 (Hamida begum Vs Mohd. Yasin) and further direct the non-applicant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 (Ten Thousand) to the applicant, in the interest of justice.”

The facts, in brief, are that the applicant earlier filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Family Court, Raipur, seeking maintenance from the non-applicant, which was registered as MJC Case No.108/2010. The Family Court, vide its order dated 23.02.2010, directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 1,000 per month as maintenance. Subsequently, the applicant filed another application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 7,000, which was allowed by the Family Court. The non-applicant challenged this order before the Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Revision No.1022/2017, and the High Court vide order dated 21.03.2018 modified the maintenance to Rs. 3,000 per month. Thereafter, in 2022-2023, the applicant again filed an application seeking enhancement from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 10,000 due to inflation and increased cost of essential commodities, submitting that she is dependent and suffering from old-age ailments including eye disease requiring medical treatment. The applicant further contended that the non-applicant is well-off, earning approximately Rs. 50,000 per month as a ceramic tiles contractor and an additional Rs. 30,000 per month as rental income from property in Raipur, and is therefore capable of maintaining her. Notices were issued, and both parties’ statements and evidence were recorded. After considering the material on record, the Learned Family Court, vide its order dated 12.08.2025, rejected the applicant’s enhancement application. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, is erroneous and liable to be set aside, as the Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the applicant filed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. after a period of more than seven years since the last order of this Hon’ble Court, during which time the cost of essential commodities has substantially increased, making it difficult for the applicant to maintain herself. Further, the Family Court did not consider that the applicant is suffering from various old-age ailments and is fully dependent on the non-applicant, who has abandoned her. It is also submitted that the non-applicant is well able to maintain the applicant, earning approximately Rs. 50,000 per month as a ceramic tiles contractor and an additional Rs. 30,000 per month as rental income from his property in Raipur, yet he has neglected his legal and moral responsibility towards the applicant.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Learned Family Court, Raipur, is just and proper, as the Court has duly considered the history of earlier maintenance proceedings, including the original maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the subsequent enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C., and the modification by the Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Revision No.1022/2017. The Learned Family Court carefully examined the applicant’s claim for further enhancement from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 10,000, taking into account the evidence and statements of both parties, as well as the applicant’s existing entitlement and the non-applicant’s financial capacity. Considering the material on record, including the non-applicant’s income and the applicant’s actual requirements, the Court exercised its discretion judiciously and concluded that the enhancement sought was not justified at this stage. Therefore, the impugned order is in accordance with law and facts.

Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.