Smt. Madhvi Singh v. Rakesh Singh Thakur
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 205 of 2017
1. Smt. Madhvi Singh W/o Shri Rakesh Singh Thakur Aged About 26 Years R/o Balaji Marg, Raja Para Kanker, Police Station Kanker, North Bastar District Kanker, Present Address Quarter No. 11, Abhishek Bihaar Phase-2, Mangla, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Rakesh Singh Thakur S/o Late Jagdishwar Singh Aged About 39 Years R/o Raja Para Balaji Marg, Kanker, Police Station Kanker, North Bastar District Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 22/02/2017 1.
The present revision application has been preferred by the petitioner/wife seeking enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance allowed in her favour by the Family Court, Bilaspur. 2.
Considering the fact that the respondent-husband is working as Constable and earning net salary of Rs.26,710/- per month, the Family Court has allowed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner-wife.
3.
It is argued that the respondent is, in fact, earning Rs.37,519/- per month, therefore, the petitioner should have been allowed the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. 4.
On perusal of the papers, it would appear that the Family Court has considered all relevant aspects of the matter including the monthly salary of the respondent to decide the quantum of interim maintenance.
5.
The order of interim maintenance is allowed to provide sustenance to the wife during the pendency of the proceedings and the findings recorded thereunder is only interim in nature, subject to final outcome of the litigation.
6.
In Cr.R.No.170 of 2017 preferred by the respondent herein challenging the same impugned order, this Court observed that the amount of Rs.10,000/- is sufficient for the wife to survive and live the decent life during pendency of the proceedings. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 7.
In the result, the revision, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Gowri