Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37936 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 322 of 2022 Amod Anand Sonawane S/o Anand Sonawanr Aged About 45 Years Address Of OfÏce 345, 6th Floor Of Shri Mohni Complex Kingsway Nagpur (Maharashtra). Present Address - C/o Smt. Sakina, Flat No. 401, 4th Floor, Utkarsh Anuradha Housing Society, B-Block Behind Of Hotel Heritage, Arsiwala Civil Line Nagpur (Maharashtra). Permanent Address- Flat No. 73, Bhagya Co-Operative Housing Society, Anand Nagar, Chakkikhana Vakola, Santacruze East Mumbai (Maharashtra). versus ... Applicant
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Madhvi Sonawane W/o Shri Amod Anand Sonawane Aged About 40 Years Present Address Of Ward No. 12, Vivekanand Colony Nandani Nagar District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Janhvi Anod Sonawane D/o Amod Sonawane Aged About 10 Years Smt. Madhvi Sonawane Mother On Behalf Of Respondent No 2 And 3 At Present Address Of Ward No. 12, Vivekanand Colony Nandani Nagar District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Harshwardhan Amod Sonawane S/o Shri Amod Sonawane Aged About 3 Years Smt. Madhvi Sonawane Mother On Behalf Of Respondent No 2 And 3 At Present Address of Ward No. 12, Vivekanand Colony Nandani Nagar District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Rohan Kumbare, Advocate. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.08.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rohan Kumbare, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside the Impugned order passed by the learned second additional principal Judge of Family Court Durg (C.G.) on dated 05.02.2022, District, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1289/2018 or may be reduced the maintenance amount passed by the trail court. in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that marriage of respondent No. 1 with the applicant was solemnized on 14.02.2007 as per Buddhist customs, wherein the marriage expenses were equally borne by both families and an additional sum of ₹1,50,000/- was paid by her father. It is alleged that after marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected her to cruelty and harassment for dowry and additional money and also pressurized her for sonography during pregnancy. It is further alleged that after the birth of a daughter, the conduct of the applicant became cruel; he expressed intention for a second marriage for the birth of a son, misbehaved with Respondent No. 1, 3 subjected her to physical and mental torture, and even sent obscene messages. Respondent No. 1 has stated that the applicant earns around ₹1,25,000/- per month from service and has other substantial income from properties, yet he failed to maintain her and the children. She is 75% disabled and unable to maintain herself or bear her medical expenses, hence she prayed for maintenance of ₹50,000/- each for herself and her two children, totalling ₹1,50,000/- per month. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations, contended that Respondent No. 1 herself has sources of income and properties, and alleged that she filed false complaints and misappropriated valuables. Upon considering the pleadings and evidence, the learned trial court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granting maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- for respondent No.1, Rs. 6000/- for respondent No.2 and Rs. 5000/- for respondent No.3 total Rs. 21,000/- per month. 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. Hence the present revision petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 05.02.2022 passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the material on record, as the applicant, who is employed as Law OfÏcer in BHEL and receives only ₹1,09,781/- per month after deductions, is also a liver disease patient undergoing regular treatment and has no other source of income, whereas respondent No. 1 is earning from her 4 medical practice and other properties yet has falsely alleged financial incapacity and has been living separately since 2013 without sufÏcient cause. The trial court failed to appreciate that the disability certificate produced by the respondent is not issued by a competent medical board, ignored her independent income, and erred in awarding an excessive maintenance of ₹21,000/- per month. The order, being perverse and unsustainable, is liable to be set aside or suitably modified in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.). He further submits that 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 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 sufÏcient means of livelihood, is unable to maintain herself and the minor children, whereas the applicant is employed as a Law OfÏcer in BHEL and possesses substantial earning capacity as well as income from other sources. The learned Court has further taken into account the consistent 5 allegations of cruelty, harassment for dowry, and neglect towards respondent No. 1 and the children, coupled with the 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 OfÏcer 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.
Decision
In view of the above, this revision petition stands disposed of. 11. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice