← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRR/614/2014dismissed

Tikelal Sahu v. Smt. Padmini Sahu And ANR.

2019-01-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.614 of 2014 Tikelal Sahu, S/o Shri Manbodh Sahu, aged about 44 years, R/o Village Pendrawan, Thana Basna, Civil and Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant versus

1. Smt. Padmini Sahu, W/o Shri Tikelal Sahu, aged about 37 years

2. Minor Prahlad, S/o Shri Tikelal Sahu, aged about 14 years, Respondent No.2 is minor through his natural guardian mother Smt. Padmini Sahu Both are residents of Village Bagbahra, Sahu T.V. Centre, P.S. Bagbahra, Civil and Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Applicant :

Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents :

None Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 14.1.2019 1.

Heard on I.A. No.1 of 2014 for condonation of delay in filing the revision. On due consideration, I.A. No.1 of 2014 is allowed and delay in filing the revision is condoned.

2.

Also heard on admission.

3.

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 29.1.2014 passed by the Family Court, Mahasamund in M.J.C. No.72 of 2012, whereby, while allowing the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Family Court has granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- in favour of Respondent No.1/wife and that of Rs.1,000/- in favour of Respondent No.2/son. 4.

From perusal of the impugned order dated 29.1.2014, it is clear that it was admitted by the Applicant himself that he had married Respondent No.1 by wearing her churi (bangle) and Respondent

No.2 is his son. From the evidence available, it is also clear that Respondent No.1/wife is residing with Respondent No.2/son separately from the Applicant with sufficient cause and both are unable to maintain themselves. It has been admitted by the Applicant that he owns 4 to 5 acres of agricultural land. In these circumstances, the grant of monthly maintenance of total Rs.3,000/- to the Respondents is just and proper. 5.

Thus, I find no merit in the revision. It is, therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Gopal