.^~(- f p/v\/' .'"•,r>A IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR F.A.(MINO, 15 "7 /2Q1Q APP&LLANT ^PPLICANT) ^ Cu Niliina Pathak D/o Shri Rajkumar Pathak Aged 22 years R/o House No 4 Sbrishti-vihar, Mangla, Bilaspur CG VERSUS RESPONDENT , yiNON-APPLICANT) ..< •\/ Rajkumar Pathak S/o Late Shri Lalji \^ /•^/:..-" ^v,.-^-/" Pathak, Aged 48 years Teacher Middle School village Nevsa, TahsU Gaurela District Bilasptir CG. At present posted as Head-Master Govt Middle School Banjhorkha (Khodri) Block Pendra Road Distdct BUaspur CG MEMO OF APPEAL UNDERSBCTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY \y ^y COURTACT. 1984 ^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellant Respondent First Appeal (M.l No.139 of 2010 Rajkumar Pathak versus Ku. Neelima Pathak Present: Shri Matay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the appellant. Shri Saleem Kazi, counsel forthe respondent. Appeal under Section 19(1) ofthe Familv Courts Act Appellant First Appeal (M.) No.140 of 2010 Rajkumar Pathak versus ^ Resporident Ku. Namita Pathak Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the appellant. Shri Saleem Kazi, counsel for the respondent. Appeal under Section 19(1) ofthe Familv Courts Act First Appeal (M.) No.156 of2010 Appellant Ku. Namita Pathak versus Respondent Shri Rajkumar Pathak Present: Shri Saleem Kazi, counsel for the appellant. Appeal under Section 19(1) ofthe Familv Courts Act ^ T n/ First Appeal (M.l No.157 of 2010 Appellant Respondent versus Ku. Nilima Pathak Shri Rajkumar Pathak Present: Shri Saleem Kazi, counsel for the appellant. Appeal under Section 19(1) ofthe Familv Courts Act ORAL JUDGMENT (Delivered on 18th January, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. By this common judgment, First Appeal (M.) No.139 of 2010 and First Appeal (M.) No.140 of 2010 both preferred by Rajkumar Pathak, First Appeal (M.) No.156of 2010 preferred by Ku. Namita Pathak and First Appeal (M.) No. 157 of 2010 preferred by Ku. Nilima Pathak are finally disposed of. 3. The present batch of appeals arise out of proceedings under Section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (henceforth 'the Act'). Ku. Nilima Pathak daughter of Rajkumar Pathak preferred Civit M.J.C. No.3/2007, whereas Ku. Namita Pathak daughter of Rajkumar Pathak preferred Civil M.J.C. No.4/2007 seeking monthly maintenance as also expenses for their marriage from their father Rajkumar Pathak. Their applications were allowed by the family Court vide order dated 8-4-2010 awarding Rs.3,500/- as monthly maintenance and Rs.2 Lakhs to each of them _^- - j-L ^ ^ <yy for their marriage expenses. This order of the family Court was under challenge before this Court by the daughters as well as the father. Those appeals bearing First Appeals (M.) No.77, 78, 51 and 52 of 2010 were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27-8- 2010. Paragraphs 11 to 14 of the order passed by this Court read as under: "11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the assets and income of the father, we are of the opinion that the maintenance of Rs.3500/- per month and Rs.2 Lakhs for marriage expenses be maintained subject to the direction that the Family Court shall consider the possibility of alteration of maintenance amount considering the provisions of Section 23 ofthe Act, 1956. 12. We are passing this order keeping in view that the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court shall not be stopped because of the direction for consideration of the Family Court in view of Section 23 of the Act, 1956. 13. In view of abovemeritioned facts and circumstances, we remit the matterto the Family Court, Bilaspur, to re-consider the matter regarding question of alteration of maintenance amount in the light of Section 23oftheAct, 1956. 14. In the meantime, the father Rajkumar Pathak shall continue to pay the maintenance amount as fixed by the •/^ ^^:^ms^' ^^&^ ^ Family Court, Bilaspur, vide impugned orders and shall also deposit the amount fixed for marriage expenses. However, the amount fixed for marriage expenses shall remain in fixed deposit with any Nationalized Bank for a period of one year, may be extended from year to year, and shatl not be encashed without leave of the Family Court on getting a proof that the marriage is to be solemnized. However, this will be subject to further orders passed by the Family Court on re-consideration of the alteration of the maintenance amount." k^.^ 4. The family Court, thereafter, has passed the impugned order on 21-9-2010 inter alia holding that in view of the salaried income and agricultural land available with father Rajkumar Pathak and keeping in view the respective status of the parties, the earlier order granting maintenance to both the daughters at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month each and the expenses for their marriage at Rs.2 Lakhs each does not call for any modification. 5. The appeals preferredby the daughters bearing First Appeal (M.) No.156 of 2010 and First Appeal (M.) No.157 of 2010 are barred by 38 days. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on the prayer for condonation of delay and for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellants in their respective appeals have been able to demonstrate sufficient cause explaining the delay in ::—t"^^. ^^•' "^•^.^ ^- filing both the appeals. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals deserves to be and is hereby condoned. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the daughters would argue that the father Rajkumar Pathak earns Rs.27,283/- as gross monthly salary as per his pay-slip for the month of October, 2010 (Annexure A-3) and also owns 10 acres of agricultural land, therefore, the amount of monthly maintenance as well as the marriage expenses deserve to be enhanced. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the father Rajkumar Pathak has argued that the amount of monthly maintenance and the expenses for marriage granted by the learned family Court are excessive and deserve to be suitably reduced. 8. Insofar as the monthly maintenance and the marriage expenses are concerned, the same have been found to be adequate by this Court in paragraph 11 of the earlier order dated 27-8-2010, therefore, no interference in this regard is called for. The matter was remitted to the family Court to consider the possibility of alteration of maintenance amount considering the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. We have perused the impugned order as well as the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Act. The family Court, in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned order, has considered the position and status of the parties as well as the available funds with the father Rajkumar Pathak to conclude that the earlier order dated 8-4-2010 does not call for any modification. Though the application filed under Section 125of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of ...--^,,,'s "\ ss^^s^.^,^^,^.^; •••i! •V.. the wife and other daughter has not been taken account of by the family Court yet it has not been disputed before this Court that in the said proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wife Padma has been awarded Rs.3,500/- and the third daughter Megha has been awarded Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance. The total amount of monthly maintenance awarded in favour ofwife and three daughters would, thus, come to Rs.12,500/-, whereas the gross monthly salary of the father Rajkumar Pathak as per his pay-slip of October, 2010 (Annexure A-3) in First Appeal (M.) No. 157 of 2010 is Rs.27,283/-. This apart, 10 acres of agricultural land is in possession of the father Rajkumar Pathak. Thus, the total amount awarded to the three daughters and the wife towards monthly maintenance is less than 50% of his gross monthly salary, which cannot be said to be on higher side. The amount of Rs.2 Lakhs awarded to each of the daughters for marriage expenses is also found to be reasonable by this Court in its earlier order dated 27-8-2010. 9. In the result, all the four first appeals have no substance. They are liable tobe dismissed. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the daughters has argued that the father Rajkumar Pathak has not paid any amount towards monthly maintenance nor has deposited any amount towards marriage expenses. In view of the above, it is directed that the father Rajkumar Pathak shall deposit monthly maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month for each of the daughters in their bank accounts by 10th day of every month. The daughters may also ^--•^_- ^ w^^ 1 ""••..;';»r^'^./'.?'.^^ .^ 'y^ produce a copy of this order before the drawing and disbursing officer of the office where the father Rajkumar Pathak is posted for remitting the amount to their bank accounts after deducting the amount from the monthly salary of the father Rajkumar Pathak. The father Rajkumar Pathak is also directed to deposit Rs.1 Lakh for each of the daughters out of the total amount of Rs.2 Lakhs awarded to each of the daughters for marriage expenses, within a period of six months from today. The remaining amount of Rs.1 Lakh each shall be deposited within six months thereafter. 11. With the above directions, all the four first appeals stand dismissed. ^L Sd/- I.lVI.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal