Disposed¶25

Veer Kotadiya v. Sunil Kotadiya

Chhattisgarh HC13 Feb 2025CRMP/567/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

School/tuition fees of minor child — enhancement from Rs. 85,000/- to Rs. 95,000/- per annum — modification of order dated 23.08.2024 in CRR No. 945 of 2024 — Family Court, Rajnandgaon order dated 11.07.2024 (Rs. 1,15,000/- per annum) — welfare of the child as paramount consideration — mother a practising lawyer recently appointed Public Prosecutor — mutual divorce, no permanent alimony claimed — CRMP No. 567 of 2025 — Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. — High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur — disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the order dated 23.08.2024: respondent to pay enhanced school fees of Rs. 95,000/- per annum (in place of Rs. 85,000/- per annum) from the date of the order. ¶25

Veer Kotadiya Vs Sunil Kotadiya — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:7961

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 567 of 2025

¶6

1 - Veer Kotadiya S/o Sunil Kotadiya Aged About 11 Years (Minor) Priya Kankariya, R/o Kamathi Line Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Sunil Kotadiya S/o Late Shree Jeevanchand Kotadiya Aged About 41 Years R/o Anoop Jewellery, Jewellery (Kotadiya Kamthi Laine Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent : Mrs. Astha Shukla, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

14.02.2025

¶15

The applicant has filed the present Cr.M.P. for modification of the order dated 23.08.2024 in CRR No. 945 of 2024 wherein the criminal revision was allowed in part by modifying the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) whereby he has reduced the amount of school fees from Rs. 1,15,000/- per Annum to Rs. 85,000/- per Annum to be paid by the respondent.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that when applicant mother and respondent have obtained for mutual divorce, the applicant mother has not claimed any permanent alimony or any monetary benefits from the respondent, therefore, she would pray for enhancing

¶17

BHUMIKA ANGARE

¶18

Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.02.18 11:13:44 +0530

¶19

¶20

some contribution which is payable by the respondent for tuition fees of their single child.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently objected the submission and would submit that the applicant mother is having good practice as Lawyer at Rajnandgaon and she is capable to maintain her son very well, therefore, this modification of order deserves to be rejected.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

From the material placed before this Court and submissions made at bar, it is quite vivid that though both the parties are in good financial position still they are fighting just because of their ego which may adversely influence interest of the child. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the respondent is also having good financial position and applicant mother is also practicing Lawyer at Rajnandgaon and it has also been informed that she has been recently appointed as Public Prosecutor, therefore, I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 85,000/per annum be enhanced to Rs. 95,000/- per annum which will be in the interest of the child because the paramount consideration of this Court is welfare of the children.

¶24

Considering this aspect of the matter, the order dated 23.08.2024 is modified and the respondent shall now pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 95,000/- per annum in place of Rs. 85,000/- per annum from the date of passing of this order.

¶25

Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. is disposed of.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶28

Judge

¶29

Bhumika

Veer Kotadiya v. Sunil Kotadiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veer Kotadiya v. Sunil Kotadiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Ferro Concrete Construction i Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sona Raksel Vs Smt. Krishna Khatik

Juli Bhansali Vs Sanjay Singhi

Co-Operative Marketing Society Maryadit Vs Board of Revenue

Ram Prasad Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rashmita Patel Vs Vivekanand Patel