ORDER :

1. Criminal Revision No.920 of 2025 is filed by the applicants-wife and daughter against the husband, while Criminal Revision No.1280 of 2024 is filed by the husband making the wife and daughter as the respondents.

2. In both the above applications, challenge is given to the order of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surendranagar dated 31.05.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.132 of 2025. The wife and daughter had made a prayer for enhancement of the maintenance amount while the husband has challenged the order making a prayer for reduction of the same.

3. The learned Family Court had ordered the husband-Nikhilkumar Rameshbhai Halari to pay monthly maintenance amount to the wife of Rs.12,000/- and to the daughter Rs.6,000/- from the date of the application.

4. Heard learned advocate for the applicants Mr. Brijesh K.Ramanuj, who has submitted that the learned Family Court was required to appreciate the fact that after having observed the Pay Slip at Exhibit 38, the Family Court has noted the net salary of the husband as Rs.79,238/-. It is further submitted that the observation of the learned Judge is to the effect that the husband has not disclosed the true fact with regard to his property. It is further submitted that the fact of paying the instalment amount has not been substantiated and clarified by the husband before the learned Family Court and further stated that he has the responsibility only of the wife and the daughter, since the father is in the textile business and is also dealing in the share market and assessed the income of Rs.35,000/- per month which has been recorded by the Family Court.

5. Countering the above arguments, learned advocate Ms.Bhakti M. Joshi appearing with Mr. Anurag Mehta for the husband submitted that the husband has the responsibility to pay the loan and his father has now retired and therefore, the husband has to maintain his father. It is further submitted that there was no further documents in the hands of the respondent as was not having any property. Thus, there would not be any scope to state the false facts with regard to declaring the property. It is further submitted that the affidavit would clarify the income. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court Judge was also required to observe the fact that there was no desertion from the side of the husband and the wife on her own volition had left the matrimonial house and on that ground, the application deserves to be rejected.

6. Having heard the submissions canvassed and on going through the records of the case, it appears that the learned trial Court Judge has referred to the evidence from both the sides and has dealt with issue about the evidence given by the wife where she had stated that she was not provided with the household expenses and whenever she would demand money from the husband for the day-to-day expenses, he would ask her to bring it from her father’s house and after the birth of her daughter, the wife had additional responsibility. The wife had further stated that she was not given the dignity as a wife in the house and even the parents of the husband would not listen and they would often mentally and physically harass her and insult her.

7. The learned Family Court had considered the facts of the matter and during the course of the deposition, the wife had shown her willingness to join the husband. The learned Family Court had noticed that the husband has not made any efforts to the take the wife during the course of the trial and therefore, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that it was the husband who was not willing to take the wife back.

8. Having noted the observations of the learned Judge of the Family Court, which does not require any further contravention or any answer to be refuted since the evidence is clear on record, now the aspect that would be required to consider is the quantum of maintenance amount. The Salary Slip as noted by the learned Family Court Judge records a