Loknath Gupta v. Smt. Anjali Gupta

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.817 of 2015 Loknath Gupta, S/o Shri Bhaiyalal (wrongly mentioned Bhaiyalal in the order sheet ) Gupta, aged about 36 years, working as an Electrician in SECL, Naurozabad, R/o Near Railway Cabin, Main Road, Village and Police Station Birsinghpurpali, Tahsil Umariya, Civil & Revenue District Umariya (M.P.) ---- Applicant

Versus

1.

Smt. Anjali Gupta, W/o Shri Loknath Gupta, aged about 32 years, Occupation House Wife.

2.

Ku. Aditi Gupta, D/o. Loknath Gupta, aged about 11 years. 3.

Divyanshu Gupta, S/o Shri Loknath Gupta, aged about 9 years. 4.

Vinit Gupta, S/o Shri Loknath Gupta, aged about 5 years. Non-applicants No.2 to 4 minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Anjali Gupta, W/o Shri Loknath Gupta. All are residents of Village & Police Station Birsinghpurpali, Tahsil and District Umariya (Madhya Prades h). ---- Non-applicants For Applicant :

Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 30/09/2015 (1) Heard on admission.

(2) In a proceeding for maintenance initiated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') by nonapplicants, the Family Court, Korba, District Korba, by its order dated 24.07.2015, passed in M.J.C. No.153/2014, granted Rs.9000/- as monthly interim maintenance amount in favour of the non-applicants;

further recorded a finding that the relationship of applicant/husband and non-applicant No.1/wife is admitted and the applicant is working as an Electrician in SECL, Naurozabad and earning Rs.55,000/- per month and the non-applicants are unable to maintain themselves which is sought to be challenged by the applicant/husband stating that the same is on higher side.

(3) After hearing learned counsel appearing for the applicant, taking into consideration the job of the applicant and considering the cost of living & price-index and basic needs of the non-applicants, an amount of Rs.9,000/- as monthly interim maintenance granted to the nonapplicants cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. (4) The revision deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at admission stage. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of maintenance proceeding and to conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (5) Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-