High Court Of ChhattisgarhFAM/60/2017dismissed

Sachin Gorakh v. Smt. Rajni Gorakh

2017-03-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant2 pages

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR FAM No. 60 of 2017 • Sachin Gorakh S/o Sounkhilal Gorakh, Aged About 36 Years R/o Shivaji Marg Tikrapara, Near Prapti Beauty Parlor, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

Versus

• Smt. Rajni Gorakh W/o Sachin Gorakh, Aged About 34 Years Present Address Through Kanhaiya Lal Goyal, R/o Dayalband Chowk, Inside Ajay Laundry Lane, Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant :

Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate.

For Respondent :

None appears.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker & Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board By Justice Pritinker Diwaker 30/03/2017

1. Heard on admission.

2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 27.2.2017 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Case No.207A/2016 allowing the application filed by respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and granting Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent and Rs.3,000/- towards the litigation expenses.

3. Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the relationship between the appellant and the respondent. He submits that the Court below while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration the fact that the respondent is a Law Graduate and running a girls hostel at Tikrapara, Bilaspur and thus having sufficient source of income. He further submits

that the Court below has also overlooked the liabilities of the appellalnt and granted the maintenance amount arbitrarily without any justification.

4. Considering the status and financial status of both the parties, the Court below has granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent-wife which appears to be just and proper and cannot be termed as excessive or unreasonable.

5. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) (R.C.S. Samant) JUDGE JUDGE Nisha