Shri Ram Singh Parihar v. Smt.Malti Bai
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
S!NCSLE B;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH
AT BILASPUR '?.?^f ,£uif^r» Criminal Revision No. .SA/A../2013 Applicant Shri Ram Singh Parihar S/o Non-Applicant Shri Bodhan Singh, Aged about 39 years, R/o C/o Gore Singh ^ Parihar, Village Jevra, Navagaon, s-y P.0.
Tipni, Tahsil Saja, Police Station ^Lhamhariya, District lltll^) Durg, Civil 8s Revenue District Durg (C.G.)
VERSUS
S\\-rf 1:2-CIV^ Smt. Malti Bai W / o^odha^u^-t -t ^°?7 •Kq^'y^ ~'~~~~=^" _ .^ SinghaLaged about 37 years, R/o NON-APPLICANT APPLICANT Near Azad School, Panchsheel Nagar Durg, Police Station Durg, Tahsil & 85 District Durg (C.G.) CRIMINAL REVISLQN_UNDER SECTION 19(4TOF FAMILY COURTACT 1984 Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated C/>/?6~ ^ 30/11/20^13 passed by the 3rd Additional(Speciayj^udge -|^j F^amily Court Durg (C.G.), in criminal case No.
201/2013 parties being Smt Malti Bai Versus Shri Ram Singh Parihar.
The copy of impugned order dated 30/1 l/20l3is filed herewith as Annexure A-l.''
HIGH COURT OW CHHATTISGARHAT BEUiSBVR CRIMINAL REVISION N0. 824 OF 2013 Shri Ram Singh Earihsu- (Non-applicant)
VERSUS
Smt. Maltt Bai NQN-APPLICANT (Applicatlt) REVISION WNDER SBCTION 19 W OFTIBE FAMILY COURTS ACT. 1984 Apitearance: Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate, for the Applicant. (Sinele Beneh : Hon'ble Bto. P. Sam Kashy. J.) (18-2-2014) (1) Heard on admission.
By way of instant criminsd. revlsion, the applicant intends to challenge the order dated 30.11.2013 passed in Crimlnal Case No.201/2013 by Third Additional Principal Judgei Family CTourt, Di-u-g.
(3) Non-applicant (Smt. Malti Bai) had earlier filed an applic'&tion against the preaent applicsuit before the Family Court, Durg, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The sald application was registered as M.J.C. No. 139/2007. By order dated 21.2.2008, the sald appllcadon was allowed by the Family Court, Durg, and it was ordercd that the present applicant shall pay an amount of Rs.630/- per month to the present non-applicant as maintenance. (4) However, subsequently the present non-applicant in the year 2011 had moved another applicadon beforc the Family Court, Durg, under Section l.27 of CrPC, seeklng enhaja.cement of the earlier maintenance ainount payable by the present applteant to the present non-applicaiit. The said case was registered as Criminal CaseNo.201/2013.
(S) The Family Court, Durg, vide impugned order dated 30.11.2013 has allowed the said application under Section 127 of CrPC and enhanced the monthly maintenance amount payable by the present applicant to the present non-applicsunt from Rs.650/- to Rs.1000/-.
-2- '<<.
(6) It is this order dated 30.11.2013 whichhasbcenputto challenge by the present appUcant in the mstant revision petition. (7) On due consideratlon of the contentions put forth by the leamed counsel for the applicant suid also the submissions made by the applicant in his revlslon petitlon, it reflects that in the year 2008 the Family Court had granted mamtena.nce allowance of Rs.650/- per inonth in favour of the present non-applicaat and down the line after about five years it has now allowlng thc applicatlon under Sectlon of CrPC, enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs.650/- to Rs.1000/- permonth. Considering the reasons ^ven by the Famlly Court in enhancing the inonthly maintenance allowanee from. Rs.650/- to Rs.1000/-, I do not find any lllegality or arbitrarlness to have been cominitted by the Family Court.
Even otherwlae the admitted fact in the instant case is that the present applicant is an Electriclan by profession and that it is anybody's guess as to what woutd be the minlmum income ofan Electriclan in present days and of the sald income of an Electrician if the Family Gowt has granted an amount of Rs. 1000/- per month to be pald to the present non-appllcant as maintensuace, the same cannot be said to be an amount excessive or exorbltant by any stretch of imaglnatlon. Therefore, the instant criminal revlaon deserves to be dismissed.
The criminal revision thus fails and 1s hereby disniissed in limine.
__----- Sd/- P.SamKoshy Judge No order as to costs.
teky;