HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT (Non-applicant in orisfinal case) NON-APPLICANTS (AppUcaQts Qriminal Revision No. 353/2006 Mohaii Lal Sonkar, aged about 42 years S/o Late Had Shaakar SonkarR/o Mukut Nagar (Lakhe Nagar) P.S. Aazad Chowk, Raipur, TahsU & Distdct Raipur (C.G.). In origin.al casel VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Siat, Riifcmiiii Bai, aged about 38 years W/o Shri Mohaa Lal Sonkar. Mahendra Kuinar, aged abozit 22 years. Saurabh, aged about 19 years. Pradeep Kumiar, aged about 17 years. Prasant Kuniar aged ab out 17 years, Note:- N0. 2 to 5 are sons ofMohan Lal Sonkar, AU R/o Ashwmi Nagar, P,S. Aazad Chowk, TehsU & Distdct Raipur (C.G.) No. 4 & 5 are mmors aad fhey are represented flirough Natural Guardiaa aad niofher Rukimni Bai (Non appUcant N0. 1). u^ REVISION UNDER SBCTION 19 (41 OF THB FAMILY COURTS ACT. (SB :Hoa'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Ashok Soni, Counsel for the applicant. Shri V.A. Goverdhan, Counsel for the non-applicants. ORAL- ORDBR (Passed on 27/11/2008^ 1, This petitioa is directed against fhe order dated 6/7/2006 passed by fhe First Additional Prmcipal Judge, Family Court/ Raipur m Misc. Caes No, 291/05 whereby First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has awarded the inamtenaace of Rs, 1 thousand per monfh to non- appUcaat N0,1 Smt. Rxikmini Bai who is wife aad non-applicaiits N0. 4 & 5 who are son. 2, Order is challenged on fhe ground fhat withoiit aay evidence relatmg to the cause for separate liviag of non-appMcaat N0, 1. Court ^— ^; L. below has awarded the maiatenance to fhe non-applicaiit N0. 1 aad fhereby committed illegality. 3. Shri Ashok Soni, counsel for the appHcaD.t aad Shri V,A, Goverdhaa, counsel for the non-appUcaats are heai'd, 4, Order impugned aiid record of Court below perused. 5, Leamed counsel for the appUcant submits that non-applicaat N0, 1 who is wife of tlie appMcaat has made allegation agaiast fhe applicaiit that he is havtag iBicit relationship wifh his tenaat Rukmini but non- appMcant has not adduced any evidence to the effect aad in. absence of such evidence she is not entitled for any mamtenaace, She is haviag ao cause for Mvmg separately from her husbaad i.e. applicaiit Leamed counsel for ttie applicant furfher submits fhat presenUy ixon-applicaats N0. 4 & 5 are inajor and fhey are not entitled for any miamtenaiice. 6, Leamed coiinsel for fhe appMcaiit placed reliaace m tiie matter of Slriyabai v. Shriram reported m MPWN, (201) m which is has held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that in absence of prove of craelty aiid second inarriage wife is not entiUed for aay mamtenaace. 7. Leamed counsel for fhe applicant furfher placed reliaace ia the matter of Shiv kumar Yadav v. Smt. Saatoshi Yadav reported ia 2004(lj CG.L.J. in. which it has held by H^h Court of Chhattisgarh that wife liviag separately froin husbaad wifhout sufficient cau^ and even after fiUng of fhe proceediag under Section 98 of the Code of Crimiaal Procedure wtfe refused to Mve witli husbaad is not entitled for aay niauitenaace. 8. On the ofher haads, learaed coiinsel for fhe non-appMcaats submits fhat non-applicaats N0. 4 & 5 become major tiierefore they are not entifled for aay mamtenance from fhe date of their majority but tliey J k. are entiUed for inaiatenaace tUl date of fheir inajonty. Non-appUcaats No. 4 8& 5 niay claira fheir arrears by adduciag docunient relating to fhe date of birth to ensure that when fhey becoine inajor. As regard fhe question of mamtenaace of non-applicaat N0, 1 is conceraed Rs» 1 thousaad monthly maintenaace has been awarded to fhe non-appUcaat N0, 1 who is legally wedded wife of fhe appUcant who has stated ia her statement fhat applicaat is having iUicit relationship with Rukmiai^ She has requested fhe appUcaiit to oust RukoiiGii froin his house who is residiag as a tenant ia his house but appUcant has refused to oust her, She has also lodged the report agam.st tlie applicaat he has also convened the meeting twice whether non-appUcant refused to provide the mamtexiance to her. On tbe other haads, applicaat Mohan Lal Sonkar had denied the allegation of the non-appMcaat but has adinitted that meeting was convened to resolve fheii' problem aad one compromise deed Ex. D-1 was executed between the parties but even after executiag tlie deed non-appUcaiit N0, 1 has refused to come to the house of fhe applicant to perfonn her ixiatairaonial obligation. 9. He has adxnitted in. para-3 of his exammation fhat he has been ousted by the society froni the society when fhere was no problemi fhen fhere was no necessity to convene fhe meetmg to resolve fhe problem and if appUcaat was not at fault fhen fhere was no cause to fhe society to oust him, tiiis shows fhat non-applicaat No, 1 te havmg sufficient cause for her Uvmg separately froin her husband i.e. appUcaat and to claim laaio.tenaace. 10, After appreciatiag the evidence available on record Court below has awarded the mamtenaace ofRs, 1 thousaad to fhe non-appUcaDLt N0. 1, Taking mto consideration fhe present cost of Uvmg the maiatenaace —Li r/- ^ awarded is neifher excessive nor iinjust. This is not a case ia which non-appUcaait No. 1 has left fhe house of appUcaat wiUfully wifhout aay reasonable cause. The evidence adduced on behalf of fhe non-applicaat N0, I is sufficient to iafer fhat appUcaat had committed cruelty aad harassed the non-appUcaat No. 1 aad coiapeUed her to leave his house, 11, Takiag iato consideration fhe evidence adduced on behalf of fhe parties. Order awardiag the mamtenaiice to non-applicaat N0, 1 is just aiid proper. Consequently, fhe petition is partly allowed. It is directed fhat non-appUcaiits N0. 4 & 5 are entifled for inaiatenaace only tiU tiie attamiiig tiie age of majority aiid fhey are not entitled for aay ftiture mamtenaace after attamiag the age of majority. The maiatenaace awarded to non-appUcant N0, 1 is hereby affirmed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge