^v ^0'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPUCANT CRIMINAL REVISION N0.545/2011 Bhav Singh, Age about 30 years, S/o Anandram, Caste Satnami Occupation Private Service, R/o Village Parsada, Tah. Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Temporary Address Satya Nager, Near Jai Stambh, Dhuma; District Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Versus 1 Ram Kumari, W/o Bhav Singh, Age about 27 years. 2 Satyawati, D/o Bhav Singh, Age about 3 years, Through Mother Natural Guardian R/o Village Suarmah, Thana Akaltara, Tah. Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19(41 OF THE FAMILYCOURTSACT '£; Appearance: Mr. H.V.Sharma, Counsel Torthe applicant. ORAL ORDER (19.09.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. Applicant -Bhav Singh has filed this revision against the order dated 25.07.2011 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.301/2007 by the Judge, Family Court, Janjgir-Champa. By the impugned order, the Family Court has allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 127 of the \"- '^arfT— CRIIVUNALREVISION N0.545/2011 Code of Criminal Procedure and has altered the amount of monthly maintenance. Respondents 1 & 2 are the wife and daughter of the applicant. The respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.38/92. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 02.07.98 and a sum of Rs.200/- was awarded as monthly maintenance to respondent No.1 and Rs.100 was awarded as monthly maintenance to respondent No.2. The respondents were, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.300/- as monthly maintenance vide the said order. Thereafter, they filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for alteration of the above allowance of monthly maintenance. The Judge, Family Court, after due enquiry in the matter, has altered the aforesaid amount and has directed that respondent No.1 will get Rs.1000/- and respondent No.2 will get Rs.500/- as monthly maintenance. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a labour, therefore, it would be difflcult for him to pay such amount of monthly maintenance to the respondents. The Judge, Family Court has discussed all these aspects, including the impact of income part of the applicant and the respondents, in the impugned order and has came to the conclusion that the applicant would pay the aforesaid amount of monthly maintenance to the respondents. The provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are enacted for sociat justice and especially to protect the women and children as also the old and infirm poor parents and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) CRIMINAl-REVJSIQNJMQ.545^011 reinforced by Artiole 39 of the Constitution. The provisions give effect to natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife , children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves. After going through the entire order passed by the Family Court, 1 do not find any infirmity in the said order so as to warrant interference in this criminal revision. The revision, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna