Partly allowed

Smt. Sarita Pal v. Murlidhar Pal

Chhattisgarh HC12 Sept 2023CRR/791/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition primarily challenged the maintenance award granted to a wife and minor children under Section 125 CrPC. The High Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.13,000 to Rs.25,000 per month based on the respondent husband's verified gross income of over Rs.1 lakh.

What did the court decide?

The respondent shall pay Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance (Rs.15,000/- to the wife and Rs.10,000/- to the two minor children share-wise).

Smt. Sarita Pal Vs Murlidhar Pal — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRR No.791 of 2022

¶4

Order reserved on : 19.06.2023 Order delivered on : 12.09.2023

¶5

Smt. Sarita Pal W/o Murlidhar Pal Aged About 33 Years R/o Block No. 48, Quarter No. C, Road -16, Sector -2, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.)

¶6

Amrit Pal S/o Murlidhar Pal Aged About 9 Years Minor Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Sarita Pal, R/o Block No. 48, Quarter No. C, Road -16, Sector -2, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.)

¶7

Yogita Pal D/o Murlidhar Pal Aged About 6 Years Minor Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Sarita Pal, R/o Block No. 48, Quarter No. C, Road -16, Sector -2, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.)

¶8

---- Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Murlidhar Pal S/o Ram Avtar Pal Aged About 50 Years Permanent Address - 1267 Ward No. 56, Adarsh Nagar, Mathpara, Near Nehru Sanskritik Bhawan, Tikrapara, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Official Address - Operative Department, Wire Rod, Mill, Bhilai Ispat Plant, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Applicants Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate

¶13

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶14

C A V Order

¶15

This revision has been preferred by the applicants against the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court in Misc Criminal Case No.351/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has partly

¶16

allowed the application of the applicants under Section 125 of CrPC, who are the wife and children of the respondent and awarded Rs.10,000/- in favour of the applicant and Rs.1,000/- - Rs.1,000/- in favour of the applicant Nos.2 & 3, total Rs.13,000/per month as maintenance in favour of the applicants payable by the respondent husband.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court on this ground that the marriage of the applicant No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 08.03.2011 and the applicant Nos.2 & 3 are their son and daughter. After sometime of the marriage, the respondent husband started torturing the applicant wife and left them and startd living separately since 15.12.2019. The respondent husband is employed at Bhilai Steel Plant and the applicant wife and children are unable to maintain themselves, as such the applicants have filed this revision for enhancement of the awarded amount.

¶18

The respondent husband has admitted this fact that the applicant No.1 is his wife, whereas the applicant Nos.2 & 3 are his son and daughter, but denied all allegations of applicants and stated that since 30.05.2019, he had been paying Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicants on compromise before passing of the judgment by the Trial Court. The respondent husband is living separately in a rented house because of cruelty of his wife, as she got him out of the house and even did not provide him food. The applicant wife has mentally tortured him. He further stated

¶19

that he is getting only Rs.40,000/- per month and his mother and father are dependent upon him, as such he is paying Rs.10,000/to his parents and had been paying Rs.3,000/- regularly to the applicants and now he is paying Rs.13,000/- to the applicants, which is sufficient for their livelihood, as such the revision filed by the applicants is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Both the parties have filed various documents and examined witnesses to prove their case before the learned Trial Court. The learned Family Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record partly allowed the application of the applicants and granted Rs.10,000/- as maintenance in favour of the applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- (Rs.1,000/- each) in favour of the applicant Nos.2 & 3, total Rs.13,000/- as maintenance in favour of the aplicants. Hence this revision has been filed by the applicants for enhancement of the maintenance amount.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order so far as granting maintenance on lower side is against the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is working in Bhilai Steel Plant and is getting monthly salary of Rs.60,000/- and he is also holding immovable property and agricultural land & house. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant No.1 is household lady, whereas applicants no 2 & 3 are school going children and they have no source of income. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the maintenance allowed in favour of applicants is not sufficient

¶22

looking to present scenario of society, where the price of food grain and other articles are in higher side. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicants no. 2 & 3 are school going children and they are required proper food, cloths, school uniform, school fee, books, school bus fees, tuition fees etc. which is not possible in the maintenance amount allowed by the learned Family Court, therefore, the maintenance allowed by the learned Family Court deserves to be enhanced in favour of applicants. Therefore, the awarded amount be enhanced suitably.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned award and strongly opposes the argument advanced by the applicants’ counsel and submits that the income of the respondent husband is not sufficient and his parents are also dependent upon him and the learned Family Court has rightly passed the award, as such the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶25

On 14.09.2022, this Court directed both the parties to file affidavit in light of the guideline issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajnesh vs Neha and another , reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 903, upon which both the parties filed their affidavit. The applicant wife stated in her affidavit that she is the housewife and she has no source of income and both the applicant Nos.2 & 3 are school going children. The applicants also filed memo/letter dated 19.05.2023 of Bhilai Steel Plant, which shows that the

¶26

gross income (Basic + DA) of the respondent husband in April 2023 was Rs.1,19,564/- (Rs.69,464.00 + Rs.26188.00). The learned Trial Court also appreciated this fact in para 14 of its order that the basic payment of respondent is Rs.65,875/- and gross payment is Rs.1,87,563/- and passed order and awarded the aforesaid maintenance amount. The respondent also stated that his parents are dependent upon him and he is living in a rented house.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the present income of the respondent, the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is liable to be enhanced suitably, thus it is ordered that the respondent shall pay Rs.15,000/- in favour of the applicant No.1 and Rs.10,000/in favour of the applicant Nos.2 & 3 (Rs.5,000/- - 5,000/- to each child), total Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the applicants, which shall be paid by the respondent to the applicants from the date of order of this Court.

¶28

The revision is partly allowed.

¶29

Sd/Rajani Dubey Judge

¶30

Nirala

Smt. Sarita Pal v. Murlidhar Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sarita Pal v. Murlidhar Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radheshyam Soni Vs The Managing Director

Smt. Savita Meshram Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Smt. Durga Bai Deshmukh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Prashenjit Mitra Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited And Ors.

Harinarayan Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Subhashani Gupta Vs Ramesh Gupta