lN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NQS$E /2011 APPLICANTS 1. Sumitra Singh, W/o Gurunam Singh, aged about 3O years, R/o Buddh Vihar Chowk, d Shankar Ngar,’ Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Kaur. D/o Gurunam Singh, aged about O3 years (Minor) Through: Natural Guardian Mother Sdmitra Singh, R/o Buddh Vihar Chowk, Shankar Nagar, Durg, Tahsii and District Durg (C.G.) i“ .4.... Ku. Lorina VERSUS NON APPLICANT Gurunam Singh, S/o Basant Singh, aged about 36 years, Permanent R/o: 19/10, Jawahar Nagar, Behind K.H. Memorial School, Bhiiai, Tahsil (CG) Presently R/oz‘ Greece Vasili, Jamendopolioi Paris 190, T.K. 1778 Taivros (Greece) and District Durg CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT’S ACT READ WITH SECTION 397 OF‘ CR.P.C. ® Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel ft Heard on admission. This revision has been flied i: 2/8/1‘ 1 to the extent it rejects appiicat No’1 and with regard the amount of in No.2. Learned counsel for the appii admittediy the wife of the non-applica: He submits that the appiication for inti grant of interim maintenance as the a maintain herself and her child and t ng into consideration that the non-applicant is earning a handsome amount in ab ad, the Court below ought to have granted interim maintenance to the applicant 0.1 during the pendency of the case but the Court has rejected the application of he applicant No.1 and granted very meager amount to the applicant No.2 by way interim maintenance. A detaiied order has been p ssed by the Court beiow considering the pteadings of the parties and present c rcumstances of the case before passing the order on apptication for grant of i 'erim maintenance. The Court below has awarded an amount of Rs.1500/—’ by ay of interim maintenance to appiicant No.2. V While rejecting the appiication of ap iicant No.1, the Court beiow has taken into ‘ consideration the pleadings made, rcumstances, including the fact that the ‘ applicant No.1 is an advocate. What ouid be the total amount of maintenance to which the applicant would be entiti d by way of maintenance which witl be l commensurate to the income and status of her husband, is a matter of evidence. rim, mam—USImo—q/mn 1.50.000 )r the appiicants. y the applicants aggrieved by order dated ion for interim maintenance to the applicant terim maintenance awarded to the applicant :ants submits that the appticant No.1 was 1t and applicant No.2 is the minor daughter. arim maintenance was filed with a prayer for ppiicant is not earning anything, she has to a' i i Ea W, WWW; Wm I W200 311WW (Wawx) 311%?! $1W ammm 3W Era-<1 mam WW mtk‘vh‘ ‘ fw? 1m SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1.4-1 G-2011 3T»! W, WWW, W3? WW C'rR‘M‘ @éW “200 WWW wmm mu arm 31m ~2, At this stage, this Court is not inciine WW WW éawwé'a m' :d to interfere with the order by guing further WW (mew) into the reiiabiiity of the case of eith r parties. Taking into consideration that the daughter has been awarded Rs.15 Ol- by way of interim maintenance, in the opinion of this Court, rejection of app ication of appiicant No.1 cannot be said to be so outrageous as to warrant interfer ce against the order deciding appiication for grant of interim maintenance. However, considering that th proceedings are summary in nature and required to be decided expeditiously, it wouid be expedient to frnally dispose of the matter with a direction to the Family. Court to tinaiiy decide the matter within an outer iimit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to co-operation by the appiicant. if there is delay in trial of the case on account of non-cooperation by the non-applicant the applicant wouid be entitled to revive the appiication for interim maintenance and also for enhancement of maintenance awarded to her daughter. With the aforesaid observations, this revision is finally disposed of. Sdl- Deepii Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge i .r, . gamed, oazioriaulrs/mo—z/zm x» e 1 50,000.