IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH «m3; 7. jg? v, mm ' riminalRevision N '5 0f2007 C o. 3 . APPLICANTS :-1. Smt. Manju Thakur, wife of Yugal as§f%{§ ‘ ishore Thakur, aged about 32 years Akash Singh Thakur, son of Yugal Kishore Thakur, aged 12 years, Minor, Through his natural guardian ' Manju Thakur, Both resident of Dixit Colony, Kosa Nagar, Thana Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS ON-APPLICANT :- Yugal Kishore Thakur, son of Shri Jairam Thakur, aged about 40 years, resident of‘Near Chaturbhuj Mandir, Banbarad, Thana Nandani, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). COURTS ACT 1984. K N %\el\to HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Revision No. 386 of 2007 APPLICANTS Smt. Manju Thakur and another. VERSUS RESPONDENT Tugal Kishore Thakur Shri Pankaj Agrawal counsel for the applicants. Smt. Fouzia Mirza with Ms. Farha Minhaz counsel for the respondent. CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1934. ORDER (25.01.2010) This revision is directed against the order dated 30.6.2007 passed by Family Court, Durg in Misc. Criminal Case No. 811/2006 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500 and 800 per month in favour of applicants 1 and 2 respectively. 2. Counsel for the applicants submits that at the time of filing of application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, monthly income of the respondent/husband was Rs. 10,000 and therefore a very reasonable claim was put forth by the applicants seeking the maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month each but by ignoring the genuineness of the claim the court below has awarded a very meager maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500 and 800 per month in favour of applicants 1 and 2 respectively. He submits that at present monthly income of the respondent is Rs. 21 ,271. 3. On the other hand, supporting the order impugned counsel for the respondent submits that current salary of the respondent cannot be taken into account for granting maintenance and it is the salary which he was getting at the time of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to be seen for that purpose. She submits that the . respondent is required to maintain his old father and elder son‘ namely Suraj. She submits that at the relevant time when an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was made, the monthly income of the respondent was less than Rs. 10,000 and therefore the order impugned being just and proper cannot be interfered with. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the record it is apparent that the respondent is working as a teacher in a Government school which makes this Court to safely presume that his monthly income is good enough to maintain the applicants properly. Looking to these days’ escalating cost of living the amount awarded by the Court below appears to be inadequate and can not permit a lady with a school going child to be maintained properly. Accordingly, the order impugned needs modification as to the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Court below. To be precise, the applicant No.1 is entitled to get maintenance of Rs. 2000 per month and the applicant No.2 is entitled for Rs. 1,500 per month. 6. Revision is thus partly allowed. Order impugned is modified to the extent indicated above. Sdl- " Pritinker Diwaker Judge 1