2 - Kumari Khyati Kothari D/o Ankur Kothari Aged About 5 Years 3 v. 1 - Ankur K
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:4910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - Smt. Smita Kothari W/o Ankur Kothari Aged About 32 Years CRR No. 446 of 2024 2 - Kumari Khyati Kothari D/o Ankur Kothari Aged About 5 Years 3 - Lakshya Kothari Aged About 1.5 Years, S/o Ankur Kothari, Applicants No.2 and 3 Through Their Natural Guardian i.e., Mother Namely, Smt. Smita Kothari, Applicants No. 1 to 3 are residents of Digvijay Marg, Kilapara, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G., Presently Residing At Capital City Saddu, Phase 3, House No. B-53, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ... Applicants versus 1 - Ankur Kothari S/o Nirmal Chand Kothari Aged About 34 Years R/o Digvijay Marg, Kilapara, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. (Non- Applicant Before Family Court) ... Respondent For Applicants For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.02.14 14:45:44 +0530 28/01/2025 2 / 5 1. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 05/12/2023 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, C.G. in MJC No.715/2018 whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants has been partly allowed and the applicant No.1 has been awarded Rs.3000/- & applicants No.2 & 3 have been awarded Rs.1000/-, each as maintenance. Hence this revision for enhancement of the amount of maintenance. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the applicants herein preferred an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. inter alia on the ground that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and non-applicant was solemnized on 29.06.2013 at Rajnandgaon according to their rites and customs. Out of their wedlock non-applicants No. 2 and 3 were born. It was further stated that just after 10-15 days of marriage, the parents of respondent used to pass taunts on applicant No. 1 regarding insufficient dowry given on marriage. It was further averred that the non-applicant used to come at about 1-2 AM in the night after consuming liquor and used to sleep in his mother's room. On 02.05.2014 applicant No. 2 was born however her in-laws used to taunt her for giving birth to a girl child. When applicant No. 1 went to her matrimonial house after the birth of applicant No. 2, her mother-in-law used to give her only two times food. It was further stated that the non-applicant used to ask for money from applicant No. 1 to start a new business. He used to assault applicant No. 1 after consuming liquor. It was further stated that on 22.05.2015 the father of applicant No. 1 expired and in November 2017 non-applicant and his 3 / 5 brother after assaulting, ousted the applicants from the house for which a complaint was lodged with Police Station Basantpur. She again went to her matrimonial house along with applicants No. 2 & 3 however she was again ousted from her matrimonial house by non-applicant and his parents. Thereafter, she was staying at Raipur with her mother and younger brother. It was also stated that applicant No. 1 has no source of income. The non-applicant earns Rs. 1,00,000/-per month from furniture supply, interest income, gold and silver ornaments brokerage and poll factory business. She claimed maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 10,000 each for applicants No. 2 and 3, a total of Rs. 30,000 from the applicant. 3. The applicant herein filed his reply to the aforesaid application and denied other averments made by the applicants. He stated that he is ready to keep applicants with him and if applicant No. I is not ready to live in matrimonial house, then at some other place. Therefore, the applicant prayed for dismissal of the application moved by the applicants herein. 4. The learned Family Court by order dated 05.12.2023 held that applicant No. 1 had sufficient cause to live separately from the non-applicant; applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and the non-applicant has social as well as moral responsibility of maintaining her, therefore, learned trial Court awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand rupees) to applicant No. 1 and applicants No. 2 & 3 have been awarded Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand rupees) each as maintenance from the date of filing of application i.e., 27.07.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the learned trial 4 / 5 Court has awarded a meager amount of Rs.3000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.1000/- each to applicants No.2 & 3. She would next contend that the trial Court did not consider the expenses borne by the applicant No.1 towards the education of applicant No.2 and care and protection of applicant No.3. She would lastly contend that the amount of maintenance may be enhanced and the impugned order may be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order of the Family Court is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. Perusal of the record would show that the Family Court has granted maintenance to applicant No.1 i.e. wife of the respondent to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.1000/- to the applicants No.2 & 3, each, i.e. the minor daughter and son, who are aged about 05 years & 1.5 years, respectively. Respondent has not filed any proof/document with regard to income of the Applicant No.1 and the respondent runs a private shop/business of furniture, therefore, in view of the considered opinion of this Court the amount of maintenance so granted by the family Court is on the lower side, and this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the amount of maintenance. Therefore, looking to the the price index which is prevailing in the society and hike in value of the commodities and also the fact that the applicant No.1 is not earning any amount as such she is not able to maintain herself and her children, it is directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs.4000/- to applicant No.1 instead 5 / 5 of Rs.3000/- and shall pay Rs.3000/- to Applicant Nos.2 & 3 each instead of Rs.2000/-, as such he shall pay a total amount of Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance to the applicants. 9. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu