High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/1449/2018dismissed

Prem v. Smt. Chandrika Bai

2020-01-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 1449 of 2018 Prem S/o Johan Satnami, Aged about 65 years, R/o Sakri, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner/Non-applicant

Versus

Smt. Chandrika Bai W/o Prem Satnami, Aged about 50 years, R/o Purani Basti, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent/Applicant For Petitioner :- Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent :- Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 28/01/2020

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned order dated 05/06/2018 whereby learned revisional Court has affirmed the order dated 15/02/2017 passed by learned trial Magistrate by which respondent's application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the maintenance amount has been enhanced from 150/- to 2,000/-.

₹ ₹

2. Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in enhancing the amount

of maintenance from 150/- to 2,000/- under ₹ ₹ Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. as the said maintenance amount is on the higher side and he is unable to pay the said amount to his wife/respondent, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

4. From a careful perusal of the record, it appears that learned trial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the fact that the respondent herein was granted the amount of 150/- per month as maintenance vide ₹ order dated 06/07/1993 which has now been enhanced to the tune of 2,000/- after taking into account ₹ the cost of living, price index, medical expenses, clothing, etc. by the impugned order which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record as the maintenance amount of 2,000/- cannot be said to ₹ be on the higher side or shockingly high.

5. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet