H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CR)MiNALREyiSlONNQ,540/201J Sanat Kumar, S/o Latel Mahra, aged about 50 years, R/o village Devbaloda, Bhatapara Chowk, Poitoe Station Bhilai 3, Tahsii Patan, District Durg (C.G.) Versus Smt. Kalyani Bai, W/o Sanat Kumar Mahra, aged about 41 years (aangan vari Karyakarta), R/o Village Gondpendri, Police Station Utai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) CRiMINAL REVISSON UNDER SECTION 19M) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT Apoearance: Mr.Rudranath Mukherjee, Counset forthe appticant. Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Counsel for the respondent. .11.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. Respondent -Kalyani Bai is the wife of the applicant. By order dated 28.05.2001, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.75/98, she was awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.500/-. Thereafter, she filed an appiication under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for alteration of the monthly maintenance. The said application has been ailowed by the Family Court by the impugned ord.er dated 04.12.2010 and the '''». -^ 'i1.... .^" £? '•Vfs^^y CRIMINAL REVISION N0.540/2011 monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- has been enhanced to Rs.1000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 04.12.2010 passed in Miscellaneous Criminai Case No.641/2010, enhancing the monthly maintenance by Rs.500/- is not justified, as the respondent is working as an Anganbadiworker. A perusal of the records would show that after filing of the application under Section 127 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure by the respondent, the applicant was called upon, who contested the matter and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the Fami!y Court came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.500/- per month granted in the year 2001 should be enhanced suitably and thus, the Family Court granted a sum of Rs.1000/- as monthly malntenance to the respondent by the impugned order dated 04.12.2010. The provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are enacted for social justice and especially to protect the women and children as also the oid and infirm poor parents and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforeed by Article 39 of the Constitution. The provisions give effect to natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife , children and parents so iong as they are unable to maintain themselves. Piease see ^2005} 3 SCC Pa.636 at Pa.640 fSavltaben Somabhai Bhativa - Vs- State of Guirat ancf others). In the instant case, the respondenVwife was granted monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- in the year 2001 and after a very long time, she filed an application for alteration of the amount of monthly maintenance. The Family Court altered the A f'-^fil ^c;"-":; --^,...\ •••^ss^' CRIMINAL REVISION N0.540/2011 amount of monthly maintenance on 04.12.2010 and Rs.500/- has been enhanced after an intervai of about more than 9 years. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed bythe Famiiy Court. The revision, therefore, is liable to dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sdf- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna ^