Smt. Santra Bai v. Harnarayan Jaiswal

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 4 of 2019 Smt. Santra Bai W/o Harnarayan Jaiswal, Aged about 45 years, Caste Kalar R/o Hardi Bazar, Thana- Hardi Bazar Thesil Pali, District Korba (C.G.). ----Applicant

Versus

Harnarayan Jaisal S/o Shri Maniram, Aged about 50 years Caste Kalar, R/o Village Post Tilkaja, Thesil Kartala, District Korba (C.G.). ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Respondents :

Ms. Richa Dwivedi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 26/06/2019 1.

With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2.

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 10/08/2018 passed in MJC No. 194/2016 by the Family Court, Kathghora Camp, District Korba (C.G.), whereby the Family Court while allowing the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C has only granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/- in favour of the Applicant. Thus, this revision has been filed by the Applicant/Wife for enhancement of the said amount.

3.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4.

There is no dispute on the point that the Respondent/Husband is doing job with SECL.

In para 3 of his cross-examination, the Respondent/Husband himself admitted that he is getting monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-. He further stated that he has met with accident for three

time and due to that he has hired a driver for his vehicle for the purpose to go his office. This fact is also admitted by the Applicant during her cross examination. Though the Respondent/Husband has deposed that the Applicant is residing in his house which is having 12 rooms and she only resides in one room, and rest of the rooms have been given on rent, there is no documentary evidence has been submitted by him that the wife has given the rooms on rent. However, the Applicant/Wife has only admitted that she has given two rooms on rent for Rs. 400/- each. Thus, it is established that the Respondent/Husband is getting monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/- and due to his physical problem he has hired a driver for his vehicle. It is also established that the Applicant is residing in his house and has given two rooms on rent for Rs. 400/- each. 5.

From the above, it is clear that the Respondent/Husband has no other responsibility and looking to the social status of both the party and financial status of the Respondent, the maintenance of Rs. 3000/- awarded by the Family Court appears on lower side. Therefore, it is ordered that the Respondent shall now pay Rs. 8000/- monthly maintenance from today.

6.

Accordingly, the revision is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Rahul