1 2025:CGHC:57330 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1120 of 2022 Sushil Yadav S/o Shri Vidyadhar Yadav Aged About 31 Years Occupation Government Servant R/o Kharkatta (Lalmati) Thana And Tehsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Savita Yadav W/o Sushil Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Kharkatta (Lalmati) Tahan And Tehsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Vaibhav Yadav S/o Sushil Yadav Aged About 6 Years Through Guardian Smt. Savita Yadav W/o Sushil Yadav, R/o Kharkatta (Lalmati) Tahan And Tehsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents Along with CRR No. 1280 of 2022 1 - Smt. Savita Yadav W/o- Sushil Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o - Village- Kharkatta (Lalmati), P.S. And Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Vaibhav Yadav S/o Sushil Yadav Aged About 6 Years R/o - Village- Kharkatta (Lalmati), P.S. And Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicants Versus Sushil Yadav S/o - Vidyadhar Yadav R/o - Village- Kharkatta (Lalmati), P.S. And Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District-Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 In CRR No. 1120/2022 For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate In CRR No. 1280/2022 For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/11/2025 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being decided of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Smt. Savita Yadav and minor son Vaibhav Yadav. The learned Judge, Family Court, Jashpur, vide order dated 01.10.2022, granted a monthly maintenance amount of total Rs.5,000/- to the son Vaibhav Yadav but for wife, Smt. Savita Yadav rejected the maintenance award. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Savita Yadav and son Vaibhav Yadav, filed Criminal Revision No. 1280/2022, 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, Shushil Yadav, filed Criminal Revision No. 1120/2022, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 3 3. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for husband Shushil Yadav, would submit that the impugned order is bad in law and on facts and therefore deserves to be set aside. It is urged that the Court below failed to appreciate that the husband has no source of income, whereas wife is an earning woman receiving approximately Rs.5,500/- per month and has been independently maintaining minor son, thereby demonstrating her capacity to continue doing so. It is further submitted that minor son is studying in a government school where education and mid-day meals are provided free of cost, and hence no additional expenditure is required towards her schooling. Learned counsel contends that wife has falsely implicated the applicant in a dowry-related criminal case, resulting in his termination from service pursuant to an offence registered under Section 498-A on 25.06.2020, due to which he is not receiving any salary. It is thus argued that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the factual matrix on record, warranting its quashing. 4. Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for wife and son, would submit that the judgment passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the material available on record, having been rendered on mere surmises and conjectures, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the Family Court failed to appreciate that from the very inception of marriage, the husband and his family members consistently ill- treated and harassed wife, ultimately compelling her to live separately, and thus the finding that she willfully deserted the 4 matrimonial home is wholly perverse. It is urged that neither the husband nor his parents made any bona fide effort to bring the wife back to the matrimonial house. He further submits that being the legally wedded wife of the respondent, is entitled to maintenance, particularly as she has no independent source of income and is required to maintain her minor child, whereas the family Court ignored the settled legal position, including the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. It is therefore argued that the applicant is entitled to a standard of living commensurate with that of the husband, and the rejection of her claim for maintenance is legally unsustainable. 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 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 01.10.2022, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month maintenance to the minor son, but rejected the wife's maintenance claim. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Savita Yadav and minor son Vaibhav Yadav, filed Criminal Revision No. 1280/2022, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it 5 deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Shushil Yadav, filed Criminal Revision No. 1120/2022, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set- aside. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the minor son, and rejected the wife's maintenance claim. 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. A copy of this order as well as original record be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan