NEHA THAKUR Vs. DURGESH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant has filed this revision questioning the legality and sustainability of the order dtd. 30/4/2022 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) in MJC No.1276 of 2016 whereby learned Family Court has allowed the application under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicants in part and awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,000.00 to applicant No. 1 and Rs.2,500.00 to applicant No. 2.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that applicant No. 1 married with the non-applicant on 14/12/2015. From their wedlock they were blessed with applicant No. 2. After some time of marriage, applicant was harassed, ill-treated on account of demand of dowry of Rs.3,00,000.00. Applicant No. 1 was also assaulted at times by the non-applicant due to which applicant No. 1 has lodged report in the concerned Police Station, based upon which, crime for offence under Sec. 498A, 34 of IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry (Prohibition) Act, 1961 was registered on 9/12/2016. The applicants filed an application seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 per month. During pendency of the application, it was amended and applicant No. 2 herein was also added as applicant No. 2 in the application under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C.. Application under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. was replied by non-applicant denying all the adverse pleadings made therein and further added that applicant No.1 herself is not interested in residing with non-applicant. He wants to continue the relationship, keep applicants with him and to maintain them. Applicant No. 1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause, hence, application be rejected. The learned Family Court enquired into the application and based on the documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the respective parties, allowed the application in part and held that applicant No. 1 is having sufficient reasons for not residing in the company of the non-applicant. Considering the salary of non-applicant, as mentioned in the salary slip and further taking note of the fact that non-applicant is paying a sum of Rs.15,000.00 to his parents i.e. 7,500/- each to mother and father, has allowed the application in part and awarded Rs.4,000.00 per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs.2,500.00 to applicant No. 2.

(3.) Learned counsel for applicant submits that the learned Court below erred in awarding meager sum of Rs.4,000.00 to applicant No. 1 (wife) and Rs.2,500.00 to applicant No. 2 (daughter). Nonapplicant no. 1 is getting salary of Rs.39,000.00 per month and as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dtd. 19/4/2017 in civil appeal no.5367/2017 (kalyan dey chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury) applicant wife herself is entitled for at least onefourth of the salary of non-applicant (husband). He contended that income of salary as concluded by learned Family Court is 39,000/- per month and therefore, the learned Family Court ought to have awarded at least Rs.10,000.00 per month in favor of applicant No. 1 and further amount of Rs.5,000.00 in favor of applicant No. 2. He submits that application stated to have been filed by parents seeking maintenance is artificial, only to dislodge applicants from seeking appropriate amount of compensation for meeting their day to day needs. Application under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of parents is filed during pendency of the application under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicants and within short period, non-applicant in settlement before the Lok Adalat agreed to pay Rs.7,500.00 each to father and mother (totaling sum of Rs.15,000.00 per month). The order obtained for payment of the sum of Rs.15,000.00 per month to his parents is illusionary only to defeat the rights of applicants. Non-applicant is not in actual terms paying the amount of maintenance awarded in favor of parents of non-applicant.