Komanlal Sahu v. Smt.Sushila Sahu
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.
SINGl-E BENCH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ^(^SPUR
CRIMINAL ItEVISION (Q^ of 2014 APPUCANT Komanlal SaHiiSB S/oShyamlalSahu, 1.0€ f^ ^y .•"' .-<:A Aged about- 56 years?
;
(Wrongly mentioned as 53 in family court order)» t' fxfc^ .^••^•-K :--•'
R/o village- Boirgaoa - ;
^"".^ < ^-"'-di '-"-•B.i ^' .••if-''
^y-:^: s-..^^ **"
/f'^..^s^v%, / 1i Thana - Bagbahara, Distt- Mahasamynd, (C. G.) I::-'-u"'ii[°:'3'5;-::'? ..':„
Present
i;-;^:iiaadressOphthalmic Assistarif "
C.H.C.-Saraipali -f ; ••""
Distt- Mahasamund,(C. G.) ,<e»
VERSUS
Smt. Sushila Sahu ^B A;?
RESPONDENT/NON-APPLICANT W/o Komanlal Sahu Aged about- 50 y^rsl R/o Ward No. 1, ShaBlsr:
- Nagar, Mahasamund~";
Tehsil and DisttMahasamynd, (C,(^),,.
•^.
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTSACT Civil and Revenue District- MahasamuncT Case Number- M. J. C. No. 71/2012^ R :' J®^
,'?& *s-:
A efcaDateof Impugned order- 08-11-2013^ Name;iof the subordinate courtPrincipal Judge, Family "CourtMahasamund '
_ v^--:^':'^ ;;"Theapplicant abovenamed respectfully presents the;%^]^|getitipn 1.
of Criminal Revision under section 19(4) Of the Raraily'<GSurtsllAct against the order dated 08-11-2013 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund in M. J. C. No. 71/2012 wherein the learned court increased the maintenance of amount200C11'td 6000 Rs. Per month under section 127(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. ^ The order of the court is hereby annexed and marked asAnnexure A=l.^ The applicant abovenamed states that she has not filed'anyiother 2.
petition of similar nature before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court or the court below.
0;} ;
:i! '•1-200H"'"''
FACTS OF THE CASE 3.
4&_
/^6 tw'
ET au Komaiilal Sahu IT Smt. SushUa Salra w^s i^Eg.l Tl i'e'yyvty^et Mr. Kishore Narava.n, Advoca.te, for the ApDlicant. ^'
^..-fs'y&^ •1<&"<d&^8'X Heard on LA.
• No.01/2014 which is application f'or condonation of delay in filing of the present criminal 1 revision. As per 'red bv limitation the of&ce report, the instant criminal revislon is of 5 days.
(2) On due consideration, since szrfficient cause has been ;xplained by the a_pplicant in not filing the criminal revision within the limitation period, I.A. No.01/2014 is allowed and the delay in filing of criminal appeal is hereby condoned. Also heard on the question of admission.
(4) By wsy of instant criminal revision,! the applicant has challenged the order dated 8.11.2013 passed in M.J.C. No.71/2012. by Family Court, Mahasamund.
l^.
(S) By impugned order dated 8.11.2013, the Family Court has enhanced the maintenaiice aiTiounl: that was already being paid to the respondent (Smt. Sushila Bai) from aji ajno-i.int of Rs.2000/- to Rs.
(S) Bnef facts of the case are that the respondent (Smt. Sushila ?ai) had filed an application seeking m.aintenance from the applicant (KomEuilal SaJiu) before the Fajnily Court, Mahasamund, which was registered as M.J.C.
No.23/2006. The sald' M.J.C.
No.23/2006 was aliowed vide order dated 23.6.2007 wherem it was ordered that the ^present applicaj'it shall pay an amount of ^KiS^sS^^S^SKzss:.
-2nth to the respondent towards maintenance ajo.d sent applica.nt has been paying the sald ajnouni ^S^^ Rs.2000/- since tjien thii sndv •- ,-1-<-S +• tiiea an. a.pplica'
L-)' !
before the Family Court, ^Iahasamund, under Section 127 CrPC for enhajicement of the maintenance 3Tnou.nt. The said dication was registered a-s M.J.C. No.71/2012. (8) Contention of the present respondent before the Fainily Court was that when inltia.Uy the order wa.s pa.ssed on 23.6.2007, the ^ present appiicant was getting monthly salary of Rs.9000/-, whereas subsequent to the revision of pa-y the applicant is drawi.ng monthly salaiy of more thaji Rs.250'00/-.
Therefore, the maintenajice ajnount which has been eajiiier awaj'ded to the present respondent should be enhanced.
The Familv C iia.sa the contentions ma.de by the present respondent m M.J.C.
No.71/2012, vide impugned order dated 8.11.2013, reached to the conclusion that it was a fit case where the maintenanc-e amount of Rs.2000/- per month which 1s bemg paid to the present respondent by the present applicant should be enhanced from Rs.2000/'- to Rs.6000/- per month.
(10'j It is this order dated 8.11.2013 which has been put to challenge bv the apolicant Komanlal Sah.u in the instant revislon inn
(11) Taking into consideration the total facts ajid circumstances of the case which ha.ve been considered by the Family Court paTticularfy the fact tha-t in the evidence of the parties, it is aji a.dmitted .posltlon that when the earlier ord-er of grantinj maintens-nce ofRs.2000/- per month was passed, the sal&ry of the present a.pplicant was mere Rs.9000/- per month. Subsequently, under the revised pay structure, the present applicant is drawing a monthly sslary of more than Rs.26,000/-, which ha.s been proved by way of docuinentar^' evidence brought before the Fajnily Court.
•-7V-'
v.;^ T~TT'
K'w?frt^ffll^UV^W=-tri-W»n»ft3t^&nrty i 'G^--'^ ^ife.UTZSS '12) Taicing into consideration this aspect, if the Fa-mily Court has enhanced the raonthly maintenance allowajice payable to the present respondent from Rs.2000/- to Rs.6000/-, the saro-e cannot be sald to be arbitrar)'' and contrar;'' to the evidence on record.
(13) In view of the above, I ajn of the opinion that it is not a case where this Court should interfere with the Findiag arrived at by the Court below.
^14) AccordmgLy, the crim.inal revision being devoid of merits is disinissed. No order as to costs.
SdA P. SamKoshy Judge Isl-rl