TE? -iiww^, 9-^iwiia, fiwi^y tltNytl **11* """""""""""""""""""""""""""""^I^ 200 31I^?T 13R? (li<tf-ls|<!IT) 3II^I^[<-ti<4) 'd^IT ^i^<i sti*iicr> ./""7 TOIRR ^lftd SII^F HOM'BLfc SHRI T.P. SHARMA, JJ. FirstApDea es-E-nn i v :NT' 1. 2. ApDea] underSection19(1 Present: . Shri Malay Bhaduri, coifinsel for the appellant. The appellant who is the fat respondent No. 2, has preferred •Principal Judge, Fami'y Court, Du chi<if<i<ili Hi+i<?ff ^fs^ <{^<'$i< ^siRiHsii^r ITeekaram Vishv/akarma Son of Late ;haitram Vishvrakarma, (Contractor), Pged about 58 years, Resident of pimplex Costing Industriat Area, Bhila'!, pistrict Durg (C.G.) '^rsus , i Kumari Nikki Vishwakarma, D/o "eekaram Vishwakarma, aged about 22 fears: Bmt. Anuradha Vishv<'akarma Wife of reekaram Vishwakarma, aged about 47 fears; Both resident of Nanddini Road, In front t)f Dalbeer Kiraya Bhandar, Bhiiai, ITahsi! and District Durg (C.G.) 1 of the Familv Courts Act, 1984. iHS' ler of respondent No. 1 and husband of ijhis appeai under SecfTon 1@C'r5'BytiTe Family Courts Act, 1984 against t|he brder dated 27-11-2007 passed by fg, in ^I-.J.C. No; 54/2007 whereby tl-ie ffii aire;is —78 ail^lwftim wirsn^Twte <-"• ; Dai rf!?''_ 3:E5T -11141<yi'l<, (STli+f'Ko, Rlirtiuy "^200 sn^yr "<ra% ( WITW^lf?tI3II^T —2.- leamed Family Court has aliovi'ed under Section 20 (3) 3 (b) ofthe hfndu granted Rs.50,000/-to the respond^ii The oniy ground urged by .{{ the appeHant wss eariier an incom^ -\. employment. However, subsequ^ij cannot work by his right hand receiving, he can bareiy meet his ov| From peruss! ofthe impugns carpenter & income tax psyee. Hj dependents. Both hissons arethe appellant himself is engaged in the Gcnsidering the above facts, the le capable of discharging his respt daughter ano' accordingly passed ths to pay'Rs.50,000/- towards the marr, . Considering the above facts Court forp^assing the impugned ords *i<ifi'l<il'i *iii<!ifTFjfe^ <R«si< ^^iRi+i ^^1 -[6 application of the respondents filed Adoption and Maintenance Act and nt No. 1 as marriage expenses. e appellant for filing this appea! is that. tax payee as he was engaged in some ly he has become incapacitaied and he d with the income .which he is now i expenses. |d order it appears that the appellant as Is also paylng the maintenance to his tarning members of the family, and the imployment of Simplex Costing Limited. •^rned Family Court has held that he is. jn'sibilities of marrying his unmarried 4 impugned order directingthe appellant i^ge expsnses ofthe respondent No. 1. /' .^''El-... ^ind the reasons assigned by the Family jr, vy'e'are satisfied that no case is made a6pnf euijeqs'd'J. -/PS ^ias)! a6e}s uoissiujpe s p piOASp Buisq ]Esdde SL|} 'A|6uipjoo; j^itEhiyiE^ tliittojt ^Sfff pMk l.pttjbllb 3§pnf Bjqsiiv ejpuajiqa -/PS I) }B psssiLusip Aqsje'-j si gouB)sqns (/ 'ieadde 3141 BU!H!LL[PB joj jno ?- it^iic. ua|»>is>ib»a (lAbtjbii ) itolsh l^llc OOZ lili......................................................... i&li^ UtttUt ^ftK.ate] 'aiiiftip®'^£lMte-£3£ OAf', ^> tfaitttg ijs.bt^ Ifctll .iMiSj.l^tt^UE.