High CourtsSingle Bench

Pankaj Kumar vs Neerawati And Anr.

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 5 April 2018 · Citation: (2018) 04 CHH CK 0053

HON’BLE JUDGES
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL. J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 125, 127
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No.744 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 413 words
1.

With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the revision is heard and decided finally.

2.

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 28.6.2017 passed by the Family Court, Baikunthpur in M.Cr.C. No.65 of 2016, whereby

the Family Court has allowed the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the Respondents and directed the Applicant to pay maintenance

of Rs.5,000/- per month to Respondent No.1/wife and that of Rs.3,000/- per month to Respondent No.2/daughter.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that earlier an application, being Case No.109 of 2014 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was decided on 23.12.2014

in which the Applicant was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Respondents. Thereafter, the Respondents moved an

application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance on the ground that due to rising prices and changed situation they

are unable to maintain themselves in the meagre sum of Rs.3,000/-per month. It was further submitted in the application for enhancement that the

Applicant is a government teacher and is getting salary of Rs.35,000/- per month.

4.

After taking evidence of the parties, the Family Court passed the impugned order dated 28.6.2017. Hence, this revision.

5.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that as per the salary-slip of the Applicant, he is getting salary of Rs.22,172/-per month. His

ailing mother is dependent upon him and her treatment also involves expenditure. Respondent No.1/wife has financial support from her parents and

brother. The amount of maintenance, which has been enhanced, is on higher side and, therefore, the same deserves to be reduced suitably.

6.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the enhancement is just and proper and does not call

for any interference.

7.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with due care.

8.

Earlier, the order of maintenance was passed in the year 2014. Vide the impugned order dated 28.6.2017, the Family Court has enhanced the

amount of maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to total Rs.8,000/-. Looking to the monthly salary of the Applicant and his other liabilities as also the social

status of both the parties, the amount of maintenance enhanced to Rs.8,000/- is just and proper and the same does not warrant any interference.

9.

Consequently, the revision is dismissed.

10.

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order.