Johan Ram Sahu vs Ramta Bai Sahu Vs

Since both the revisions arise out of a common order, they are disposed of by this common order.

Vide order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Criminal M.J.C. No.183 of 2014, the application under Section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure moved by Ramta Bai was allowed by the Family Court, Raipur and maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month was

granted in her favour. In February, 2016, an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted by Ramta Bai for

enhancement of maintenance on the ground of rise in inflation and her illness. The said application for enhancement has been allowed and the amount

of maintenance has been enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month vide the impugned order dated 7.11.2017 passed by the 1st Additional

Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in M.J.C. No.94 of 2016.

Criminal Revision No.1177 of 2017 has been preferred by Johan Ram challenging the enhancement and Criminal Revision No.172 of 2018 has been

preferred by Ramta Bai for further enhancement.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with due care.

From the evidence available on record, it is clear that Johan Ram owns 76 dismil of agricultural land in his name. In the year 2014 also, he had

owned the same land. There is no dispute that there is rise in inflation, but Kalindribai, first wife of Johan Ram is also dependent on him and there is no

evidence on record to show that there is any enhancement in the income of Johan Ram since the year 2014. It is also pertinent to mention here that

Ramta Bai is residing in the house of Johan Ram situated at Fafadih, Raipur. The Family Court has enhanced the amount of maintenance only on the

ground that there is rise in inflation, but has not paid attention towards the fact that there is no enhancement in the income of Johan Ram since the

year 2014. Therefore, the order of the Family Court enhancing the amount of maintenance is unjust and improper.

Consequently, Criminal Revision No.1177 of 2017 filed by Johan Ram challenging the enhancement of maintenance is allowed and Criminal

Revision No.172 of 2018 preferred by Ramta Bai for enhancement of maintenance is dismissed. The impugned order dated 7.11.2017 enhancing the

maintenance is set aside.

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.