THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSOARH AT 81LASPUR Appellant RespQndents X ADolicants ,a*®U( Resp_ondenS Cf-iminal Rsvisson No. SS1 of200S h-iari Prasad S/o, shri Satya Narayan Somani, aged about 42 year Wo Village & Post Pipriya Thana-Pasan, tahsil-Katghora & Dist. Korfca (C.G.) ' Versus .Sr".t. U.'Tiadevi W/o Shri HariPrasad Saman!, age-(J about 36 ysars, Manmohan S.'o Shfi Hari Prasad Somani, ageci about 14 years, through his natura! gu'ar.dian mothei' Gopai S/o Shri Hari Prasad Somani aged .g'bout 13ynars .•So'/ind S,'o Shri HafiPrasad Somani agsa about 11 yesrs; through his natural 2. j. 4. guardi'an mothsr All resident or Viliage & Post Pipriya, thana-Pasan Tahsi'i-katghora a'ist. Korba, Ai pres'eni I'esident or. Chameij Chowk, Dhamatari, Thar.a & Thasii-Dhamatari D!S?. Dhamatari(C.O.) Anti Criminal Revision No. 685 ot'200o 4. Smt Uma Devi vv;'o Shri Hari Prasad Somani aged 36 yrs r/o Chameli Chouk : DhamSari Disci-Dhamtari CG Manmohan aged 15 yrs Gopal sged 14 yrs Govind aged '12 yrs No. 2 to 4 : s./o Shr; Hari Prasaci Somani : Rep.-esenied ihroL.gh rnother : Smt Uma Devi ; Appiicant-1 Versus Hari Prasad Somani agea' 43 yrs s/o Satya Narayan Somani F/O. Gram: Pipariy'a Tah - Katghora, Distt-Korba CG CRIMINAL REVISiON UNDER SECTSON 19 (4) OF THE FAMILY-COURT ACT 1384 . (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.p. Sharma, J.) <;., Present: Shri R.S. Patet, Advocats for the aoDllcant in Criminal Revision No. 531 of 2006 and respondenf 'ln Crimina! Rsyision No. 695 of 2006, Shri Anurag D. Shrivastava, Aavocaie ror the appiicants in Criminaf RsvisJQn No. 695 of20S5 and respondents 'i.n Criminsl Revis'on No. 531 of 2006. s 2-- ORAL ORDER (Passedon22''°April,2008) Criminal Revision Nqs. 531 of 2006 and 695 or' 2006 arising out the same order are being disposed of by a common order. 2. These revisions are directed agginst the order dated 19.7.2006 passed by the First AdditiSnal Principal Judge, Famiiy Court, Raipur, Camp-Dhamtari in Miscellaneous Case No. 337/05 v/hereby the Judge, Famity Court has awarded the m^'ntenance of Rs. 1500/- per month to the, ,-H sons ofthe appticant/Hari Prasad i.e. Manmohan and Govind and deniedth") claim of the respondent No. 1/Smt. Uma De'/i, vvife of the applicant on the ground that she is having no sufficient cayse for living separately from her husband. 3. The applicant Hari -Prasad in Criminal Revision No. 531 of 2006 has challenged the order impugned on the ground that maintenance awar^led is excessive. 4. The applicant No. 1 Uma Devi in Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2006 has challenged the order on the ground that she is having reasonable cause for living separately from her husband, but. the Judge, Family Court has considered this fact and denied her ciaim. 5. Counsel for the parties heard. 6. Order impugned and record o;" the trial court perused. 7. It is argued on behaff of th§. applicant Hari Prasad that without any materia! availabls on record, the Family Court has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month to his sons nameiy Manmohan and Govind is excessive. The trial court has not considered the income of the applicant and he is having no means to mainiain his vvife arid chiidren. Uma Devi is residing separatelyfrom her husband v^ithout any cause, therefore.she is not entitfed for maintenance. , •^las.si.lfi&iiiasSKJiBiS.iiSSsSiBiliSSIS 3> 8. It is argued on behalf of the respondents i.e. wife and children that wife was subjected to cry,elty by her husband, therefore; she is residing separately from her husband and maintenance avvarded to her sons are not disproportionate and necessary to meet requirement oftheir livelihoQd. '•»', 9. On the date of evidence, the appiicant Hari Prasad Vi/as absent and the tria.1 court has proceeded the case ex-parte. <t 10. After taking into consideration the statement of the v/ife, the Judge, Family Court has awarded maintenance or Rs. 1500/- per month to the sons. of the applicant Han Prasad namely Manmohan and Govind, but denied the claim ofUma Devi. 11. The applicant IJma Devi has admitted in para-23 of her cross-examination that she is having !and and money. She has not estabiished her case that she was having sufficient cause for living separately from her husband. The triat court has rightiy rejected the claim of Uma Devi. 12. As regards the quantum of maintenance to the children i.e. Manmohan and Govind, no substantial evidence has been adduced on behalf of Uma Devi in order to prove the definite income ofthe applicant/Har! Prasad. The appiicant Hari Prasad is under an obligation to maintain his sons. ^. 13. Without any substantial evidence, it is dinicult to hold that the appiicant Hari Prasad is having sufficient means to maiTitain hissons, but considering the obiigation, maintenance of Rs. 10OO/—permonth to Manmohan and Govind, iotai Rs. 2000/- per month would be just and reasonable. /'s--" &.-.. 1 :<«£©A ^t. ^ 4- 14. Consequentiy, Criminal Revision No. 531 of 2006 is partly allowed and the order impugned is modified to the extent that the applicant Hari Prasad \ shall pay Rs. 1000/- per month to each sons i.e. respondent No. 2/Manmohan and resp.ondent No, 4/Govind instead of Rs. 1500/- per month. Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2006 is hereby dismissed. .J-- 15. Copy of the order be kept in Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2006. 1.t. ,..ll: Sd/- ^P.Sharms Judge B.i- ^..