← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhFAM/91/2015dismissed

Vikas Sen v. Chandralekha Sen

2015-08-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Inder Singh Uboweja2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR FAM No. 91 of 2015 • Vikas Sen, son of Rajesh Sen, aged about 29 years, R/o Dubey Colony, Mova, P.S. Mova, Tahsil and Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ---- Appellant

Versus

• Chandra Lekha Sen, wife of Vikas Sen, aged about 28 years, R/o. C/o. 10Th Nalghar Chowk, Near Gayatri Mandire, Santoshi Nagar, Tikarapara, P.S. Tikarapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant :

Shri Jitendra Gupta with Shri M.T.Haider, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Hon'ble Shri Justice Inder Singh Uboweja Order On Board By P. Diwaker, J.

05/08/2015 Heard on admission.

2.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, allowing the application as filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and directing the appellant to pay Rs.5000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent. 3.

Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent is working as Ayurvedic Doctor and her earning is about Rs.19,220/- per month, and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. 4.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents as filed by the appellant.

5.

After going through the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed before the Court below, a finding has been recorded by the Court below that the appellant is working

as civil contractor, his family background is very good, he is financially sound and considering his income, he has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent - wife.

6.

Relationship of the appellant with the respondent is not disputed. After appreciating the pleadings and documents, the Court below has rightly awarded Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the order impugned. 7.

Appeal is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) (I.S.Uboweja) Judge Judge Anjani