Rupeshwar Alias Rupesh Patel v. Ku. Siddhi Patel Minor

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR FAM No. 173 of 2015 Rupeshwar alias Rupesh Patel aged 43 yrs. S/o Khageshwar Patel, CasteAghariya, R/o Khairpali, Thana Ambamauna, District Badhgarh (Orissa), Presently, an employee of ESIC residing at Chakradhar Chowk, Raigarh, Tehsil & District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

Versus

Ku. Siddhi Patel (Minor ) Aged 12 years through Her Mother & Natural Guardian Smt. Chitra Patel, D/o Rupeshwar Patel, R/o M-2/183, Phase-I Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant :

Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate

ORDER

Per P. Diwaker, J 12/01/2016 1.

Heard on admission.

2.

Undisputedly, respondent- Ku. Siddhi Patel is the daughter of the appellant. Presently, she is aged about 13 years. In the original proceedings upon entertaining the application as filed by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., an order was passed by the competent Court on 26.3.2007 granting Rs.800/- per month as maintenance amount to the respondent. Subsequently, on 9.8.2012, the amount of Rs.800/- was enhanced to Rs.2200/-. Considering the price hike and the problem being faced by the respondent, she filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking that the maintenance amount be enhanced to Rs.15000/- per month. After considering the said application, the

Family Court has allowed the application for enhancement of the maintenance amount and directed the appellant to pay Rs.4000/- per month from Rs.2200/-. It is this order, which has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal. 3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already provided a house to the respondent where she is living with her mother. He submits that after the divorce with his first wife, i.e. mother of the respondent, the appellant has performed second marriage and out of the said wedlock, he has a son and he is finding it difficult to maintain the respondent as well as his second wife and the son.

4.

Perused the record.

5.

The appellant is working as a Manager in Employees State Insurance Corporation and is drawing sufficient salary. 6.

Considering the status of the appellant, respondent and the present cost of living, the Court below appears to be not unjustified in enhancing the amount to Rs.4000/- per month from that of Rs.2200/- per month. 7.

The appeal has no substance. The same is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself.

Sd/ Sd/ (Pritinker Diwaker) (Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) Judge Judge sunita