Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 820 of 2019 1. Smt. Savita Sahu And Another W/o Ashwan Kumar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Purani Basti, Jamalipali, Tahsil Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Minor Prateek Sahu S/o Ashwan Kumar Sahu Aged About 2 Years Thrugh Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Savita Sahu, R/o Purani Basti, Jamalipali, Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., --- Applicants versus
Legal Reasoning
Ashwan Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Achchhelal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Om Printers, Village Semipali, Urga, Chowki Urga, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRR No. 1052 of 2019 Ashwan Kumar Sahu S/o Acche Lal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Om Printers, Village Semipali, Urga, Police Station Urga, District - Korba Chhattisgarh., ---Applicants PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.30 15:10:20 +0530 Versus 2 1. Smt. Savita Sahu W/o Shri Ashwan Kumar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Purani Basti, Jamnipali, Tahsil - Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Pratik Sahu ( Minor ) S/o Ashwan Kumar Sahu Aged About 2 Years Through His Natural Legal Guardian I.E. The Mother Namely Smt. Savita Sahu, W/o Shri Ashwan Kumar Sahu, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Purani Basti, Jamnipali, Tahsil - Katghora District - Korba Chhattisgarh., --- Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. For Respondent Kishan lal Sahu, Advocate. (in CRR No. 820/2019) : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. For Applicant Manoj Paranjpe. Advocate(in CRR No.820/2019) : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. For Respondents : Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate (in CRR No.1052/2019) Kishan lal Sahu, Advocate. (in CRR No. 1052/2019) Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27/06/2025 1. 2. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being decided of by this common order. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Smt. Savita Sahu and Son Pratik Sahu. The learned Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District- Korba vide order dated 10.05.2019, granted a monthly maintenance amount of total Rs. 8,000/- to the wife, Smt. Savita Sahu and Son Pratik Sahu. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Savita Sahu and Son Pratik Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 820/2019, 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, Ashwan Kumar 3 Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 1052/2019, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 3. Ms. Ravikar Patel, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Kishan lal Sahu, learned counsel appearing for wife and son namely, Smt. Savita Sahu and Son Pratik Sahu would submits that the order of learned Family Court is based on conjecture and surmises. She further submits that the wife has proved income of her husband is Rs. 30,000-35,000/- per month. However, the learned Family Court concerned partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance amount Rs. 8,000/- per month in favour of wife and son, ignoring the fact that the husband is earning person and he earns of about 30,000-35,000/- per month. The learned Family Court has passed maintenance amount is very lower side. 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.8,000/- 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. Aditya Dhar Diwan, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for husband Ashwan Kumar Sahu, would submit that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the husband is ready and willing to keep his wife with him, but she left the matrimonial house and living separately, without there being any reasonable cause. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife has not adduced any evidence in respect of income of the husband. The learned Family Court has awarded disproportionate maintenance in favour of the wife. He further submits 5. 6. 4 that the she is an M.Sc. qualified woman and she earns Rs. 20,000/- per month by teaching tuition and working in a private institution. Apart from this, she earns Rs. 1,000 per month separately by doing sewing, knitting and embroidery work and by giving training. Thus, she earns Rs. 30,000 per month from where she received sufficient amount and she is able to maintain herself. He also submits that she is living in her maternal home of her own free will, and she is living separately without any reasonable cause. Therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be set-aside/reduced suitably. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 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 10.05.2019, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month towards maintenance to wife and son 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. Savita Sahu and Son Pratik Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 820/2019, 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, Ashwan Kumar Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 1052/2019, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 5 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. 8,000/- 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. 9. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti