^^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. i3^0F 2005 PETITIONERS 6^ / 1. Siya Bai W/o Lurku @ Laxman Satnami/aged about 26 years; / 2. Ku. Anisha D/o Lurku @ Laxman Satnami, agedabout 2 years; s-\:^-^i \^-te^- --^^^ ^V^l-" .•••*'A . < l^S--"^ •^•^\< Hulasram S/o Lurku @ Laxman Satnami, aged about 3 months, The petitioner no.2 and 3 are Minors, Through natural guardian Mother Siya-Bai; All R/o Village Sapiya, Police Station Dabhra, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS Lurku @ Laxman Satnami, S/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 28 years, R/o Raigarh Dipapara, Orissa Road Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS. ORDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS RESPONDENT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petttion No. 1965 of 2005 Petitionere Siya Bai and others Versus Res{K>nident Lurku alias Laxman Satnami Post for oider on 3 ^uly, 2006. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1965 of 2008 Petitioners Siya Bai aad ofhers Versus Kespondent Lurku aUas Laxinaa Sataami 8B: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Afflihotri, J Shri L. P, Dubey, Advocate Jfor the petitioners, Shri S. K. Tiwad, Advocate for fhe respondent. ORDBR ( 3^5uly, 2006) The followiag order of the Court was passed by Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. 1 The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India impugns fhe oider dated 17.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakd, Distdct- Bilaspur ia Crimiual Kcvision No, 500/ 2004, whereby fhe petitioners No. 2 arid 3 ie. iiiinor daughter and miaor son of fhe petitbxier No.l and thc jx:spoiident werc graated allowaaces for mamtenaace UBdcr Section 125 of the Code of Crimdnal Procediire, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') at the rate of Rs. 500/-, eacli, pei rnonlh, confirming fhe order dated 26.11,2004 passed by fhe Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti in Misc. Crimmal Case No, 223/2002. 2. Learaed counsel for the petitioners submlte fhat it is fhe responsibiUty of fhe husband/respondent to maiatam his wife and as such the wtfe/petitioner No,l is also entitled to get rriab denance, aad the axnount of maiatenance granted to fhe pctitioners No. 2 and 3 be iacreased. He further submitted ftiat the pclitioner No.l was deserted by the husbaad/rcspondent 2 No. l as ttie pctitioner No. 1 aad her family could not meet fhe dematid ofKs, 10,000/- fi-om her fafher by fhe husbaad. 3. On fhe other haad, leamed coimsel appearing for the respondent subinitted that the income of tfae petitioner is about Rs.1800/- per monfh, out ofwhich Rs. 1000/- has already been granted to fhe mmor chfldren. The petitioner No. 1/wife is not entifled to aoy maintenaace under Sectioa 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. which provides that no wife shaU be entitled to rcceive an aUowance for fhe niahitenaace, ifwifhout aay sufi5cient reason she refuses to Uve witb her husbaad. The respondent/husband is williag to live wifh tiis wifc cmd keep her wifh him, and fhere is no reason why she has cliosen to Uve separately, and as such, the respoudent/husbaad is not Uable to pay aay maintenaace allowance to fhe petitioner No. 1/wife, The mamtenance aUowaiice paid to the chUdrcn are even ofherwise excessive, keepmg m \dew fhe monthly iacome offhe rcspondent/husbaad. 4. After haviag heard leanied couusel for fhe parties aad perusing the judgment of fhe court-below, it is found by fhe tdal Court fhat fhe atlegation of deiaaad of dowry, beating and desertion is not proved aad fhe petitioner No,l/wife has not given aay sufficient reason as to why she was Uviag separately, The revisional Court has exarmned fhe facts offhe case aad confirmed fhe finding and the order dated26.11.2004 passed by fhe Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, by its oider dated 17.2.2005. 5. Keepiag ia view fhe earaiag offhe respoadent/husband ie. about 1800/- per monfh, out of which Rs, 1000/- has already been granted to the mmor childrcn, who are Uvmig with fhe wife, it may be convenienfly presuraed that the full amount inay not be used IN^"^ ^ for maintenaace of 3 years aad 3 xnonfhs old children aad soxne of thc money must have been used by the petitioner No.l/wife a!ao However, m fhe facts ajid circumstaaces of fhe case fhe rcspcmdent is clhected to pay a farther suxn ofRs. 300/- p,Bi. to tihc pctitio3icr No.l/wife, from tlie date ofpassiag offhis order, in. addition to 1'he aoiount ofRs. 500/- payable to fhe petitioner No,2 aad petitioner No,3, each, as directed by fhe Courts below. 6. Por fhe reasons stated above, fhis petition is partty aUowed to the above extend. No order as to costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur ^fr"