Sakti, Police Station and Tahsil Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) v. Lalit Kumar Singh S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8454 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 233 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sursarita Kanwar W/o Lalit Kumar Singh Aged About 34 Years, 2 - Monesh Kumar Singh S/o Lalit Kumar Singh Aged About 07 Years, 3 - Bhavesh Kumar Singh S/o Lalit Kumar Singh Aged About 05 Years, (Applicants No.2 & 3 are minor, through legal guardian mother Smt. Sursarita Kanwar (Wrongly Mentioned As Uraon) W/o Lalit Kumar Singh), All are R/o Ward No. 11, Jhulkadam Sakti, Police Station and Tahsil Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.). ... Applicants versus Lalit Kumar Singh S/o Manharan Singh Aged About 44 Years Occupation Assistant Professor, Government Kranti Kumar College Jetha, Police Station And Tahsil Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.). --- Permanent R/o Village Mahamandpur, Police Station And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the 2 order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Camp Court Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.24/2023, whereby the Family Court has granted interim maintenance total amount of Rs.18,000/- per month (Rs.6,000/- per month for each applicant), hence this revision is being filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount. 2. Brief facts of this case, it is alleged that the family members of applicants have given gifts as per their status on marriage of applicant No.1 and non-applicant and after the lapse of one year of marriage, the non applicant started torturing to the applicant No.1/wife on account of demand of dowry and also torturing her by saying that the face of wife is ugly and on 09-03-2023 at about 3.00 PM, the non- applicant ousted the applicants from his matrimonial house, thereafter, the family member of applicant No.1 and the applicant No.1 reported the matter to the concerned police station on 14-03-2023 and presently the applicant along with her children are residing at her parental house and they are not having any source of maintenance and the non-applicants No.2 & 3 are studying at Anunay Convent School Sakti in Class-1 and KG-I respectively and the applicant No.1 is not having any source of income and the non- applicant is posted as Assistant Professor at Government College, Jetha and earning Rs.1,25,000/- per month and also having 50 acres of land from which he is earning Rs.25 lakhs per annum and therefore, the applicants have filed the application for grant of maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month (Rs.10,000/- each). 3 3. The non applicant/respondent filed his reply to the application and admitted the marriage and also admitted that the applicant No.2 & 3 (minor children) are born out of their wedlock and he never demanded dowry and denied all the pleadings made by the applicant No.1 and also stating his reply that as per custom of schedule tribe society, the applicants are not having any right to get maintenance from him and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. 4. After considering the application and reply filed by both the parties and the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned family Court vide its order dated 13-12-2024 (Annexure A-1) granted amount of Rs. 18,000/- per month (Rs.6000/- each) has been awarded to the applicants by the learned Family Court, hence this revision is being filed for enhancement of maintenance amount. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that while granting amount of maintenance, the learned Family Court has not considered the income of non-applicant properly and granted less maintenance to the applicants. The learned Family Court is overlooked the fact that the two children (applicant No.2 & 3) are minor and both are studying in School and therefore, maintenance of Rs.6,000/- each is very lower side, which is liable to be enhanced. He further contended that both the minor children are also suffering from various diseases time to time and therefore, they are also liable get proper treatment and maintenance and therefore, the maintenance amount is very lower side. The non- 4 applicant is himself admitted that he is getting Rs.80,000/- per month salary and also having 50 acres of land, but the learned Family Court not considered the same and granted only Rs.6,000/- each (total Rs.18,000/-). The applicant No.1 is having proper reason, why she is not residing with the non-applicant, as she has already lodged FIR against the non-applicant under Section 498-A of IPC, which is still pending. It is also contended that the applicant No.1 is not having any source of income and therefore, she is liable to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- per month and also liable to get compensation of Rs.20,000/- per month in respect of children (total Rs.30,000/-) for her and her children’s maintenance. It is therefore, prayed that, this Court may be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount awarded in the order dated 13-12-2024 (Annexure A-1) from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per months or as prayed in the application prayed before the learned Principal Judge, Camp Court Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicants and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has granted interim 5 maintenance amount of Rs.18,000/- per month (Rs.6,000/- for each applicant). 8. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that applicant No.1/wife has no high source of income, she is residing in her parental home with her minor sons/applicants No.2 & 3 and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court granted the interim maintenance to the applicants under Section 125 of CrPC, non- applicant is husband of applicant No.1 and father of applicants No.2 & 3, has to pay the said interim maintenance amount. Therefore, considering facts of the case and looking to the the price index which is prevailing in the society and hike in value of the commodities and nature of job of the respondent, it is directed that the respondent shall pay interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to each applicant instead of Rs.6,000/- (total Rs.21,000/- per month instead of Rs.18,000/- per month).
Decision
9. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed and stands disposed of. VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.02.22 11:31:46 +0530 Vasant Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge