1 2025:CGHC:34915 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1176 of 2022 1 - Smt. Puja Sonkar W/o Shri Yashwant Sonkar Aged About 23 Years R/o Rambag Sadar South Ward, Rani Bagicha Dhamtari, Districty - Dhamtari At Present R/o House Vedram Sonkar At Village Nahardih, Police Outpost - Kareli Badi, Thana - Magarload, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Lawnya Sonkar D/o Shri Yashwant Sonkar Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Puja Sonkar, R/o Rambag Sadar South Ward, Rani Bagicha Dhamtari, Districty - Dhamtari At Present R/o House Vedram Sonkar At Village Nahardih, Police Outpost - Kareli Badi, Thana - Magarload, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus Yashwant Sonkar S/o. Shri Ramvishal Sonkar Aged About 35 Years R/o. Rambag Sadar South Ward, Rani Bagicha Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant(s) CRR No. 1291 of 2022 Yashwant Sonkar S/o Shri Ramvishal Sonkar Aged About 35 Years R/o Rambag Sadar South Ward, Rani Bagicha, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Pooja Sonkar W/o Shri Yashwant Sonkar Aged About 23 Years Rambag Sadar South Ward Rani Bagicha, Presently Residing At House KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Vedram Sonkar At Village Nahardih, Police Outpost Kareli Badi, Thana- Magarload, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Lawnya Sonkar D/o Shri Yashwant Sonkar Aged About 1 Years Through It Mother Pooja Sonkar, Rambag Sadar South Ward Rani Bagicha, Presently Residing At House Vedram Sonkar At Village Nahardih, Police Outpost Kareli Badi, Thana-Magarload, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants :Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Adv. in CRR No.1176/2022. For Non-applicant :Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Adv. in CRR No. 1176/2022. And For Applicant :Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Adv. in CRR No.1291/2022. For Non-applicants :Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Adv. in CRR No.1291/2022. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/07/2025 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife and daughter namely Smt. Puja Sonkar and Minor Lawnya Sonkar. The learned Family Court, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, vide order dated 20.10.2022, granted a monthly maintenance amount of ₹1200/- to the wife, Smt. Puja and Rs. 1200/- to the daughter, Lawnya. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Puja, filed Criminal Revision No. 1176/2022, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not 3 meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Yashwant Sonkar, filed Criminal Revision No. 1291/2022, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced. 3. Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for wife Smt. Puja would submit that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance amount Rs. 1200/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 1200/- per month in favour of her daughter, total 2400/-per month, ignoring the fact that the non-applicant/husband is working as property dealer and he use to earn Rs. 50,000/- per month and having shop of cloths at Rambagh Dhamtari named as Yash Collection, having house in the city, 3 plots at Rudri Road and also having agriculture land and income from the said land and he is duty bound to maintain her so she filed an application, sought maintenance of Rs. 35,000/-per month from the husband. He further submits that the learned Family Court without consider the income of the husband and without consider the fact that her husband abuses her and slapped her in which she received grievous injury in her ear and treated in the hospital of Dr. I.C. Jain, Dhamtari and thrown her from his house. He further submits that the learned Family Court did not consider the fact that in a meager of Rs. 1200/- it is not possible to purchase food or essential commodities. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper and contrary to the fact and as such, amount of maintenance i.e. total Rs.2400/- is shockingly low looking to the cost of living, standard of living, cost of price index, therefore, same be enhanced suitably as 4 husband works as property dealer and use to earn Rs. 50,000/- and also having a land which is 0.3 hectare and 0.060 hectare land situated in Maradev and Siyadehi. 4. Per contra, Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for husband Yashwant Sonkar, would submit that the husband has denied all the allegation levelled by the wife against him and has specifically narrated the actual and true facts that it was the wife who was in love with another man named as Dhanshyam Pal and has caught her many times talking over phone at odd hours in night, further on 10.10.2018 she left the matrimonial house with someone without informing the husband or the Family members to which a missing report was also lodged by the husband. Later she was caught roaming around with the said named person in Raipur but then also the husband accepted her and resumed the matrimonial obligations and resided with her, on the promise of the wife that she will not repeat such conduct. But after few days the conduct of the wife gotten worst and the husband discovered the fact that his wife has developed relationship with another man named Sagar Sahu with whom the husband caught her in an objectionable position, which shook him the core. The Same was also intimated to both the families upon which a meeting of community was called, from then on she is living separately with her daughter, at another house of the husband. He further submits that the husband has tried his level best to save his matrimonial ties, so much so, that the wife and other two daughters are residing together and his wife along with daughter choses to live separately. Further there is no efforts made by the wife for the other two daughters which clearly shows that the wife has no intentions to reside with the 5 husband and other two daughters to maintain cordial relationships with them. He further submits that the maintenance amount deserves to be reduced suitably and amount of maintenance of Rs.2400/- per month payable to wife and daughter is not reasonable and fair, therefore, his revision deserves to be allowed and revision filed by wife deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife along with daughter before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 20.10.2022, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs. 1200/- per month towards maintenance to wife and Rs. 1200/- per month to the daughter, total 2400/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Puja Sonkar, filed Criminal Revision No. 1176/2022, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Yashwant Sonkar, filed Criminal Revision No. 1291/2022, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding 6 recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 1200/- per month each i.e. wife and daughter. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original records of both revisions to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal