RAMKHILAWAN CHANDRAKAR vs SMT. KALINDRI BAI

This revision is listed for hearing on admission. With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard and decided

finally.

The revision has been preferred against the order dated 20.7.2017 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur in Case No.52 of 2016, whereby the

application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the Applicant/husband has been rejected.

Facts, in brief, are that vide order dated 3.3.2005 passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M.J.C. No.57 of 2004, a sum of

Rs.150/- per month was awarded as maintenance in favour of the Respondent/wife. Thereafter, the Respondent/wife filed an application under

Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement, which was registered as M.J.C. No.182 of 2009 in which vide order dated

26.11.2009, the maintenance was enhanced to Rs.700/- per month. The maintenance was further enhanced from Rs.700/- to Rs.900/- per month vide

order dated 24.2.2011 passed in M.J.C. No.111 of 2011. Thereafter, the Applicant/husband preferred the application under Section 127 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure on the ground that he is aged about 61 years. He is unable to do any work and is unable to make earning. He has no means of

earning. Therefore, he is unable to make payment of maintenance to the Respondent. They have one married daughter. The daughter is capable to

maintain her mother/Respondent. The application of the Applicant/husband was rejected by the Family Court vide the impugned order dated

20.7.2017. Hence, this revision.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/husband submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate that the Applicant is an old person and

he has no source of income and, therefore, he is not able to pay the maintenance. He is dependent upon his second wife and at present he has no

source of income,

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/wife supports the impugned order and submits that the Family Court has rightly rejected the

application of the Applicant/husband.

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

The Applicant/husband himself has admitted during his statement that he has ½ acre agricultural land in which he does farming. From his

statement, it is clear that he has means to maintain the Respondent. Furthermore, he is aged about 61 years only. There is no document on record to

show that he is physically or mentally unable to do any work or make earning.

From the above discussion, I find that the Family Court has rightly rejected the application preferred by the Applicant/husband. I find no merit in this

revision.

Resultantly, the revision is dismissed.