HIGH COURT OF CHHAWESGARH AT EELASPUR“ $E HGNgBLEW MR. JU$TI§3E PRI'i‘INKER §IWAKER ¢R.REV._;«0. 34212:;«36 APPLICANT$ Smt. Anita Dias 85 Agatha" VEI’S Li S NON-APPLXCANT Dempak Das\ Shm‘ SVPurohii ’ cmmsel f0? the er , ysicantsl . Shri $om};ad1 Vc‘r'ma, mun-s6 far tilt: non—ap§i£c:m3t, REVISION UNDER SECTKON 3972401 OF THE Q3.P.Cu IIEAB WEE SECTION igéQ GE THE FAME? COUgET A€E‘, 19S4 JUDGMEM iminsaom Ares-ant revisiOn is dimcted agaimst thf: impugnevl Qriar {fated A S€d by fhe £earxam‘ Family Court Karina, in Evi.J.C. NS. 23%“;5 wheraby ihe ma'raed Ccmrt be§0w by aiiawing applicatkm as {Thai by the applicants under Ssction 1’25 Cr.P.C. has awarded Rs. 2000 per month n favour 0f ‘he appiicant No.1 ancl Rs. applicant. N02. ,OOO per month in favour of 2. Bxief facts of the case are that 9n 2. 12.05 the appéicants have filed. application under $€ctiom 125 CaRC. seeking maintsnarms from :he non- apph‘cant‘ According to the appiicants, mam'agf: of the applicant Nal was so%emnized with me nan-appEicant cm 737,02 and‘ Gut 0f tha wedbck, the applicant N02 was ham. E: has bean contended by appEicant NOE that fmm the beginning, she was subjected to cruelty by the non-applicant fer demand of dowry and she was ousied by the noneappEcaJ’lt, El: has been further contended that the appiicants are net in a posiiien ta maintai themselves Whereas the monthly income of the non—applicant is about Re, 18,000 and that apart he is earning Rs. 5000 ner month by previding tuiticns. It has been further contended that the non—appEicam nee a1se got: 5 acres of egrieukurai Eerie from which he is edso earning Rs. 50,000 per annum and thus the prayer was made tn award Rs 5,660 per month as x “ « d @,, f}7 J maintenance: in favour of applicant N01 and Rs. 3000 per month in favour of applicant No2. 3. Contention of the applicants were denied by the non—applicant and accarding to him, false allegaticns were ievelled against him and in fact it is he who has been deserted by the applicant N01” He has aiSD denied his salary of Rs, [8,000 per month and has suhmitted that his mommy salary is only RSV 5000. V ‘ 1n support of her case, appiicant N01 has examine<§ herseh”; (me Amrit Das 85 Satish Kumar Kashyap whereas the neneppkcént has examined himseH‘ and cne Uday Das. After appreciating the evieence, iearned trial Judge has some to the conciusicn that the menth‘iy income of the non—appiicaxxt 'is about Rs. 7,000 and therefore he is iiabie t0 pay Re 2000 and 1000 per month towards maintenaxme 0f the appticants. 4. Contention of Shri Purchit, counsel for the applicants is that the court below has erred in law in calculating the monthly income of the non- applicant. He submits that as per Annexure A/Q the income of the non- applicant is 15,484 and therefore the Famtly court has erred in law in awarding a very meager maintenance amount. 5. On the other hand, supporting the lmpugneé judgment it has been argued by $hri Verma that after all deductions the non—apoticant gets about Rs. 8,963 per month and therefore the Court below has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs. 2000 anti 1000 per month in favour of the applicants. : ‘k* f r_/,W TV"j’ 6. I have hearci counsel for the parties. From the record it is apparent that the Court below has erred in law in calcutating the salary of the applicant as Rs. 7000 per month. it is apparent that even it the deductions are taken as it is, the monthty income of the non—applicant comes to Rs. 12,000 and therefore the maintenance amount awarded in favour of the applicants deserves to be enhanced. Thus, this Court reaches to the conclusion that looking to the present day cost of 1iv1'ng and the monthly income of the non—applicat‘it, the applicants are entitled for maintenance of Rs. 3000 to the appiicant No.1 ca Rs. 2000 to applicant No.2 from the date of passing this order. The non-applicant/husband shall also pay Rs. 4,0001— to the K. applicants as cost of this litigation. inke)? D Judge Sd'l— ‘Maker W m