1 2025:CGHC:37937 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 303 of 2022 1 - Smt. Madhvi Sonawane W/o Amod Anand Sonawane Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Vivekanand Colony, Nandini Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Janhavi Amod Sonawane D/o Amod Anand Sonawane Aged About 10 Years Through- The Legal Guardian Mother Madhvi Sonawane, R/o Ward No. 12, Vivekanand Colony, Nandini Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Harshwardhan Amod Sonawane S/o Amod Anand Sonawane Aged About 3 Years Through- The Legal Guardian Mother Madhvi Sonawane, R/o Ward No. 12, Vivekanand Colony, Nandini Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Amod Anand Sonawane S/o Anand Sonawane Aged About 45 Years Office Address 345, 6th Floor, Shri Mohini Complex, Kingsave Nagpur (M.H.) Present R/o Through- Smt. Sakina, Flat No. 401, 4th Floor, Utkarsh Anuradha Housing Society B-Block, Behind Hotel Heritage, Arsiwala Civil Line, Nagpur (M.H.) Permanent Address Flat No. 73, Bhagya Cooperative, Housing Society, Anand Nagar, Chakkikhana Wakola, Santakruz East Mumbai (M.H.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Rohan Kumbare, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rohan Kumbare, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is most humbly submitted that the amount of maintenance for Rs. 21,000/- granted may kindly be increased to Rs. 1,50,000/- per months in the interest of justice.” 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the applicants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in an identical matter, this Bench had disposed of CRR No. 322 of 2022 (Amod Anand Sonawane vs. Smt. Madhvi Sonawane & Others) vide order dated 01.08.2025, observing as follows : “7. From the perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that the pleadings and evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Family Court has rightly observed that respondent No. 1, being 75% disabled and without sufficient means of livelihood, is unable to maintain herself and the minor children, whereas the applicant is employed as a Law Officer in BHEL and possesses substantial earning capacity as well as income from other sources. The learned Court has further taken into account the consistent allegations of cruelty, harassment for dowry, and neglect towards respondent No. 1 and the children, coupled with the 3 admitted fact that the applicant failed to provide any financial support despite having adequate means. The Family Court has, therefore, exercised its jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in partly allowing the application and awarding maintenance, which is just, reasonable, and in consonance with settled principles of law. Thereafter the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.10.2024, has enhanced the maintenance amount and directed payment of Rs. 30,000/- per month to be deducted from the salary of the applicant observing the status of applicant as he is working as Law Officer in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, as well as the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, I am of the view that the Family Court as well as the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. It is to be directed that the said order shall continue to remain in operation. 10. In view of the above, this revision petition stands disposed of. They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of CRR No. 322 of 2022, this revision may also be disposed of in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it 4 is evident that the facts and issue involved in this revision is identical to CRR No. 322 of 2022, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in CRR No. 322 of 2022. 5. Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of in terms of the order dated 01.08.2025 passed in CRR No. 322 of 2022. 6. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan