Nafr High Court
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:41244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1254 of 2022 Sandeep Agrawal S/o Shri Niranjan Lal Agrawal Aged About 36 Years R/o - Nagoikhar, Ward No. 52, Sichai Colony Darri, Tehsil - Darri, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
Chhavi Agrawal W/o - Shri Sandeep Agrawal, Aged About 32 Years R/o- L.I.G.-46, Sarita Bhawan, Sada Colony Darri, Police Station - Darri, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant(s) CRR No. 329 of 2023 Chhavi Agrawal W/o Shri Sandeep Agrawal Aged About 32 Years R/o L.I.G. 46, Sarita Bhawan, Sada Colony, Darri, P.S. Darri District Korba Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus Sandeep Agrawal S/o Shri Niranjan Lal Agrawal Aged About 36 Years R/o Nagoikhor, Ward No. 52, Irrigation Colony, Darri, Tehsil Darri, District Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant :Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Adv. in CRR No.1254/2022 For Non-applicant :Ms. Binu Sharma, Adv. in CRR No. 1254/2022 And For Applicant :Mr. Binu Sharma, Adv. in CRR No.329/2023 For Non-applicant :Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Adv. in CRR No.329/2022 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14/08/2025 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. Chhavi Agrawal. The learned Family Court, Katghora, District Korba, vide order dated 29.11.2022, granted a monthly maintenance amount of ₹11,000/- to the wife, Smt. Chhavi Agrawal. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Mamta @ Pushpa Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 329/2023, 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, Sandeep Agrawal, filed Criminal Revision No. 1254/2022, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 3. Ms. Binu Sharma, learned counsel appearing for wife Smt. Chhavi would submits that the learned Family Court without considering the material facts and evidence which is available on record has awarded the meager amount of Rs. 11,000/- only. She further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to consider that the husband is engaged in business and running two good vehicles and earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. The Family Court passed an order without relevant consideration and the fact that the wife is required to maintain a decent life and in 3 accordance to the standard as she would have been living with her husband and Rs. 11,000/- granted as maintenance is not sufÏcient for her livelihood. 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.11000/- is shockingly low looking to the cost of living, standard of living, cost of price index, therefore, same be enhanced suitably. 4. Per contra, Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for husband Sandeep Agrawal, would submit that the learned Family Court has erred by awarding maintenance of Rs. 11,000/- per month to the wife and the same is contrary to documents and material available on record therefore is bad in law. He further submits that the learned Family Court has not considered that the wife is torturing the husband and his family immediate after marriage, however, the husband tried to manage the situation on his label each and every time, but looking to conduct and behavior of wife the husband is residing separately. The learned Family Court has wrongly awarded 11,000/- per month as maintenance only on the basis of pleading of wife in her application as she is pleaded that the the husband is earning 1,00,000/- per month, however, her mother has been stated that the husband is earning 1.5 lacs per month and her sister has been stated that, he is earning 2.0 lacs per month, but, the reply of husband has not been considered whereby he has been replied that he is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, and in support of that the husband is produced his income tax return, and therefore the impugned order has been passed without considering the income of husband and thus, the same is bad in law and liable to be set aside. The impugned order has 4 been passed by learned Family Court without considering the fact, that no documents has been filed by the wife in respect of income proof of husband and also not showing the reason that why she residing separately, however she itself tortured to the husband and his family The learned Family Court has also not considered that the wife is educated lady and she can maintain to herself, but she only harassing to the husband and his family immediate after marriage. The maintenance amount which is awarded by learned court below is too much in respect of income, liability and expenses of husband. Learned Family Court has not considered that the husband has declared that he get only Rs. 10,000/- per month. Therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be set-aside/reduced suitably. 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 29.11.2022, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs. 11,000/- per month towards maintenance to wife and further ordered to bear Rs. 500/- for expenses of the proceeding. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Chhavi Agrawal, filed Criminal Revision No. 329/2023, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be 5 enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Sandeep Agrawal, filed Criminal Revision No. 1254/2022, 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. 11,000/- per month to the wife. 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 be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Kunal