IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION N0. Ai Stngte /2011 fS.B.) PETITIONER , NON APPLICANT ^^L p.R.(te........^-p-?[^^^ preseited bt Shri ,;(-;-n"^-|""w-' (c.G. Ulv/..^-.!t-*-'<8* K^ O^...........-^)-- Gore Lal, S/o Awadh Ram, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Jharna, P.S. Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa Oaied. RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT VERSUS Kirtan Bai Rathore, W/o Gore Lal Rathore, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Jharna, at present resident of Darpa, P.S. Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19(4)0F THE FAMILY COURT ACT ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BXLASPUR Crimiaal Revlsioa No. 618/2011 SB: HON'BLE SHRI 8UNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Gore Lal, s/ o Awadh Rani, Aged about 32 years, R/o vUlage Jharaa, P.S. Baradwar, Tahsil Sajbti, District Jaajgtr Cliainpa (CG) Versus Kirtaa Bai Rathore, w/o Gore Lal Rathore, aged about 30 years, R/o viilage Jhama, at present resident of Darpa, P.S. Baradwar, Tahsfl Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (CG} CK1MWA1, REVXSION UNDER SECTIOH 19 (4| OF THE PAMILY COURTS ACT Appearance: Sltri Abhay Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant (01.12.2011) Sunil Kutnw SInfta, J. Heard oa adiuission. The applicaat is husbaud of the respondent. He has ffled this revision ^auist order dated 8.9.2011, passed by fhe Family Court, Sakti, District Jianjgir Champa in Misc. Criminal Case No. 38/2010, by which, &n application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., ffled by the respondent has been aUowed by fhe said Court. The respondent/wiie was awarded inonthly inaintenance of Rs.800/- vide order dated 25.11.2002. She ffled au appMcation under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration of the ainount of inaintenaace aad clamied Rs.4000/- per aionth. The appUcautwas called upon T 2 CRR 618/2011 by the Family Court. He ffled reply aud contested fhe above appUcation. The learued Judge, Pamily Court Iraiued 2 Issiies aiid atter recording the evidence, held fhat the respondent was entiUed to get Rs. 1200/- p.Bi. as laonthly laaiintenauce froin fhe applicaut. Thus, flie amount of iiiaintenauce was enhanced by Rs.400/- p.in. Shri Tiwari submits fhat there is no basis for tbe above enhanceiaent. I have heard Shri Tiwari at lengfh and have also perused fhe records ofthe Pamily Court. The initial order of inamtenaace was passed tu the year 2002 and after a lapse of long period, the wtfe filed an application fbr alteration on 8.9,2010, which was allowed by the Famfly Court atter adopting due procedure aad after recordin.g findiugs on the relevaat facts. Considermg the long time elapsed after passing of the initial order and ftie order under challenge aud furtb.er rise in prices of Uie essential coininodities in belween fhis period, it does not appear that fhe impugned order is unreasonable. The provisions ofSection 125 Cr, P.C. are enacted for social justice and especiatty to protect the woinen aud children as also the old aad infirm poor parents and falls within the constituti.onal sweep of Article 15(3) remforced by Ardcle 39 of fhe Constitution. The provision gives effect to natural and fundaDiental duty of a inaa to m.aintaia his wite, cbildren aud parents so long as fhey are unable to inaintam ftieinselves. Keeping in inind fhe above legal position, it cauaot be said tbat the enliancement ot' the amount of laaintenaace by Rs.'WOf- after a lapse of about 09 vears, is luxreasonable. Por fhe foregoing reasons, I do not lind any substance in fhe revision. The revision, fherefore, is Uable to be disinissed aad is hereby dismlssed suminarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge •^ :,-^