Partly allowed¶¶23

Smt. Gulo Devi v. Gohdul Ram

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jan 2025CRR/1087/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C.; adequacy of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. assessed against current price index; post-retirement pension counted as continuing means of husband; Family Court's retirement-based reduction reasoning not accepted; maintenance raised from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month; Family Court Ambikapur order dated 23/05/2024; Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; single-Judge order; husband served but unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed in part; maintenance enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month, payable by the husband/non-applicant to the applicant/wife with effect from the date of the order. ¶¶23

Smt. Gulo Devi Vs Gohdul Ram — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:335

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 1087 of 2024

¶6

1 - Smt. Gulo Devi W/o Gohdul Ram, Aged About 40 Years R/o VillageNawanagar, Post And P.S.-Darima, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.)

¶7

... Applicant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Gohdul Ram S/o Jeetan Ram, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village-Bulga, P.S.-Lundra, At Present Resident Of Sankul Incharge Block Lundra, DistrictSarguja (C.G.)

¶10

... Non-applicant(s)

¶11

For Applicant (s) : Shri Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Non-applicant (s) : None, though notice served.

¶12

NARESHKUMAR Digitally signedby NARESHKUMAR KAMDEDate: 2025.01.08 KAMDE 11:14:40 +0530

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

03/01/2025

¶16

The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 23/05/2024, whereby learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) has dismissed the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the wife of the nonapplicant. Before the Family Court, the wife moved an application

¶18

¶19

under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance from Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 25,000/- per month on the ground that the husband gets salary of Rs.60,000/- per month and he also earns agricultural income. The Family Court, after appreciation of the evidence on record, vide the impugned order dismissed the application of the wife for enhancement in her maintenance holding that the husband was to retire in July, 2024 and therefore his income was to be reduced to half to the income which he was earning.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/wife submits that the maintenance of Rs.5000/- granted to the wife is a meager amount for her livelihood, but, ignoring this fact the Family Court has passed the impugned order dismissing her prayer for enhancement of her maintenance. The wife has no means of source of income and looking to domestic expenses, treatment etc. she is unable to survive on the present maintenance. Hence, it is prayed that the amount of maintenance may be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- per month.

¶21

Though notice was served upon the non-applicant/husband, no representation is made on his behalf before this Court.

¶22

From perusal of the material available including the evidence led before the Family Court, I find that though the husband has retired from service in July, 2024, he is still getting pension. The present maintenance of Rs.5000/- cannot be said to be sufficient for fulfilling domestic needs, treatment and other livelihood requirements in view of the current price index. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the maintenance is enhanced by Rs.3000/- per month.

¶23