\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J Cr. Revision No. 239 12005 APPLICANT Megjraj Sahu Slo Bhuwan Lai Sahu, Aged about 38 years, R/o’ Shitlapara, Ram Nagar, RS. Gudhiyari, Raipur, Tehsil and District. Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Rukmani‘Bai W/o Meghra Sahu, Aged about 35 years. Mr. Anil Gulati counsel for the applicant. Mr. Satish Verma counsel for the respondents. REVISION UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT ORALORDER (Passed on 1.7.2008) » This revision petiu‘on is directed against the order dated 28.4.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Misc.Criminal Case No. 45/2005 Korba, whereby the Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,5OOI- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 7501- per month each to respondenS 3 and 4 but no maintenance is awarded to respondent No.2 being married daughter of respondent No.1 and the applicant; 2. The order passed by the Family Court is challenged on the groaund that the maintenance amountawarded to respondents No.1, 3 and 4 is excessive and not in accordance with the income of me ‘ applicant. \ \ ’ «u: 2. Kumari Sumitra Dlo Meghraj Sahu,. Aged about 13 years, _ 3. Kumar Hemlata Sahu D/o Meghraj Sahu, aged about 7 years, $ a 4. Nokhe Lal Sahu S/o Meghraj Sahu, ‘ Aged about5yeais, Respondents 2 to 4 are are Minors, through natural guardian Mother Smt. Rukmani Bai,‘ All Rio Ashok Nagar Gudhiyari Raipur (CG) \{7 @ 3. Counsel for the parties heard and the order impugned perused. 4. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that’the lncome of the applicant is asse5sed at Rs. 3000I- per month and the maintenance awarded is also’Rs. 3000I- per month. He aruged that the applicant is maintaining himseif and his two sons who are residing with him and therefore, the maintenance awarded to the respondents is‘excessive and unjust. a 5. On the other hand me order impugned is supported by the counsel for the respondents. n 6. g From the material available on record it reveals that the a . respondent No_.1 is having reasonable cause for living separately from the applicant. As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the. appiicant himselthas admitted in paragraph No.2 of his statement that his monthiy income is Rs. 6000I- and after deduction he gets Rs. 3000/- to 4000/-. 7. Considering the present cost of living maintenance awarded by the Family Court to the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 is neither excessive nor unjust. in my opinion the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in awarding the maintenance of Rs. 1,5001. per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 750I- per month each to respondents No. 3 and 4. 8. Consequently, the revision being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. L sdl— Ty. Sha‘ma Judge