1 2026:CGHC:7544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1204 of 2024 Virendra Sonkar S/o Birjuram Sonkar Aged About 45 Years R/o Fingheshwar Road, Dauvapara, Near Tehsil OfÏce, Rajim, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Savitri Sonkar W/o Virendra Sonkar Aged About 40 Years R/o Ram Bagh Sonkar Road, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District-Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2. Mahek Sonkar D/o Virendra Sonkar Aged About 22 Years R/o Ram Bagh Sonkar Road, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District-Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocates. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.11 15:05:33 +0530 2 “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the order 14.06.2024, passed by the Family Court, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), passed in case no. 128/2023 be quashed and set aside. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the applicant, who is the husband of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 and the applicant were married in the year 1998, and out of their wedlock one girl child, namely respondent No. 2, was born. According to respondent No. 1, the applicant used to misbehave with her, subject her to physical violence, and was in the habit of consuming alcohol. The applicant and the respondents have been living separately for more than 19 years. As per respondent No. 1, the applicant is engaged in agricultural work and earns about Rs. 25,000/- per month. On this basis, respondent No. 1 prayed for payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards maintenance for herself and her daughter, respondent No. 2. 4. According to the applicant, respondent No. 1 left him after one year of pregnancy and never returned to resume cohabitation as husband and wife. In his reply before the learned Family Court, Dhamtari, the Applicant stated that he was neither involved in drinking nor in any form of physical abuse. In fact, respondent No. 1 was requested several times by the applicant as well as members of the Sonkar community to return to her matrimonial home; however, she outrightly refused to live with her husband and allegedly used abusive language when asked to do so, and explicitly declined to resume marital life. It is further submitted that 3 respondent No. 1 has been earning her livelihood by selling vegetables at her place of residence for the past 19 years and is capable of maintaining herself and her daughter. Moreover, the Applicant does not own any agricultural land and earns only Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month through labour work. 5. It is pertinent to note that neither party submitted an income afÏdavit as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Despite this, the learned Court framed the following issue: “Whether the Applicant is entitled to maintenance from the Respondent? If yes, to what extent?” 6. Both the applicant and respondent No. 1 tendered their statements in examination-in-chief and were duly cross-examined. 7. After examination of the parties, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 14.06.2024, holding that respondent No. 2, being an adult daughter capable of maintaining herself, is not entitled to maintenance, as there is no provision under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance to an adult daughter (except in specified circumstances). The learned Court further directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 on or before the 5th day of each month. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant is already overburdened with several other responsibilities. It is pertinent to note that neither of the parties submitted their income afÏdavits as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Further, in Aditi v. Jitesh Sharma, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “It is often seen that both the parties 4 submit scanty material and do not disclose correct details. The tendency of the wife is to exaggerate her needs, whereas the husband tends to conceal his actual income. Thus, this Court laid down the procedure to streamline the grant of maintenance. Guidelines were issued in exercise of powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, prescribing a uniform format of AfÏdavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings. Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance was also laid down…” 9. In view of the above, the failure of both parties to file the mandatory income afÏdavits vitiates the proceedings, and this itself constitutes a ground for remanding the matter back to the learned Family Court. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 is earning independently and is capable of maintaining herself. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is engaged in manual labour and earns only Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month. Directing payment of Rs. 2,000/- per month amounts to more than 50% of the Applicant’s income, which is excessive and unsustainable. Learned Family Court completely ignored the fact that respondent No. 1 and the applicant have been living separately for more than 19 years, and that respondent No. 1 has categorically refused to resume cohabitation as husband and wife without sufÏcient cause. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 13. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Family 5 Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondents. Upon proper appreciation of the material available on record, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 1. However, respondent No. 2, being an adult daughter capable of maintaining herself, was held not entitled to maintenance, there being no provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to an adult daughter except in specified circumstances. 14. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 15. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek