@ EEGE CGURT 9F CEHAwISGARi-i E? EILAS?UR &. R. Fla. 261120G5 Ravi Kumar Goswami, agad about 27 yéars, S/o Lat€ Kar€em Sai, Rio Vaishali Nagar, Kusmunda, Tahsil katghora, Distt. Korba {0G3}. A?PLICANT Versus RESPONBENTS 1. Smt. Saiitoshi Goswami, agad about 22 years, Wf 0 Ravi Kumar. 2. Ku. Vaishnavi Goswami, aged about 3 yeam, Minor through its aaturai “gf guardian mothor Smt. Santoshi Goswa‘ni, W/o Ravi Kumar Goswami, Both Rio Puraoi Basti, Korba, Tahsil x35 Distt. Korba (CG) at present Village Chudiia, 13.0. Gewara, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.). ;w CREMINAL REVISIOE U]S 19‘4] OF THE FAMILY CO3R‘?’$ AWE. ISB :Hon’bie My. ’F.F.Sharma5 J.§ Presem: Shift DR. Shama, Sr. Advocato wih Shri BI}. Badgaiva, Advocate for tho appiicaa‘t. Shri Sai‘iozldra Duboy, Advocats for tho respondents. GRAL GRDER {?asse:1 on 9] 4/ 269%; Thie petition is ’directec‘i againet the order Qaieil 21j3;280é paSsesi bV the Juiige, Famiiy Cour: Korba iii Ciimiiial MJC No, 11 112005, awarding the mainienance to ‘Ihe non—applicaiite at me rate of Re. 75Qf — per month anti Rs. 500] — per moath reopectively, Order is challenged on the ground that maintenance awaided is excessive 331d trial Court has not considered that non—applicant N0. 1 residing separately from her husband without any sufflcient GauSC . 3. Counsel for the parties heaxd. Order impugned and record of trial r Court‘pemsed. M ;u It is axguai on behalf of the applicant that non—applicant No. 1 who is a wife of applicant is residing separately from her husband Without a11y suiiiciant cause. Applicant has tried his level best and even convened meetmg of the society but non-applicant No. 1 has refused to come and reside with applicant. Applicant is a driver aild the maintenance awarded is excessive. ‘ On the other hand, the order of the trial Court is supported on behalf of the non-applicants. Relationship is not disputed. Ex.—D—1 is a Panchnama of the alleged society convened meeting but do not bear the signatures of the non-applicants and her relatives. She has specifically stated that she was subjected to cruelty and she was compelled to leave the house of the applicant when she was pregnant for three months. According to the statements of the paities non-applicant No.1 is having suti‘icient cause for living separately. As regard the amount of maintenance learned Judge, Family Court has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 750i — per month to his Wife (non—applicant No. l) and Rs. 500/— to the daughter (non'applicant No. 2) aged about 3 years. Considering the present cost of living, the maintenance awarded is not excessive. I do not find any merit in the petition. Consequently, the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. In View of this order, M. (Ct)? No. 632/06 and LA. No. 2041/06 also stand disposed of. Sd/— T. P. Sharma i Judge; \rv v‘