JUDGMENT 1. Both the Revision Petitions have been preferred against the same impugned order, dated 24.09.2001, passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 68/2020, whereby the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was accepted and the husband-Anil Kumar Drabla was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 18,000/- towards maintenance per month from the date of application, with the following prayers:- In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 963/2021: "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 24.09.2021 passed by learned Family Court No.2, Uadipur may kindly be quashed and set aside. Consequence thereof, the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife be dismissed in toto. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted in favour of the petitioner." In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 138/2022: "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to allow this Revision Petition and in pursuance of the impugned order dated 24.09.2021 passed by learned Family Court No.2, Udaipur. The maintenance amount may kindly be enhanced and the instant petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed." 2. Both petitions arise out of a common controversy, and the brief facts of the same as noticed by this Court are that the Husband, Anil Kumar Drabla and the wife-Ichha Drabla @ Neetu Kalra, married on 05.09.2015. Owing to discord among the parties, a maintenance application came to be filed by the wife, on 10.12.2018 before learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Udaipur. The learned Court below vide order dated 24.09.2021 passed a final order, whereby the amount of Rs. 18,000/- payable monthly to the wife by the husband, towards maintenance, from the date of application. The husband is before this Court seeking quashing of the impugned order, while the wife is before this Court seeking modification of the impugned order, seeking an enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded to her vide the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the husband submitted that the earnings of the husband have not been properly determined, and therefore, the maintenance amount arrived at is excessive. 3. Learned counsel for the husband submitted that the earnings of the husband have not been properly determined, and therefore, the maintenance amount arrived at is excessive. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that husband has a daughter from previous marriage, and thus, he has to maintain his daughter as well as his mother also. 3.2 Learned counsel also submits that the monthly expenditure of husband is quite high, is merely a trader of Potato and Onion in a local market (Mandi). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the wife has submitted that the husband even has high expenditures of grocery, mobile bills and other bills, which shows that his earnings have been concealed. 4.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the husband has failed to bring on record his income tax returns and other documents in accordance with the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 324 . 5. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, finds that the learned trial court has passed a very balanced order after arriving at a conclusion of the earning of the husband to be around Rs.50,000/-. It is well considered and reasoned order, taking into account the submissions made by husband and wife, the maintenance of Rs.18,000/- is a reasonable amount as passed by the learned trial court. 6. In view of the above, no cause of interference is made out in either of the petitions and the same are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.