AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. H.}.}..../201 1 CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 OVIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CH‘HATTISGARH APPLICANT Amrit Saheb Gupta S/o Shri Ishwar Saheb Gupta, Aged about 34 years, Occupation: Business w fl ............. and Agriculture, R/o Village A NU ..................€w “MM presumei by Slut ........... ' Ganiyari, Police Station Kota, again... juw y 8. n District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS _ NON«APPLICANTS :1) Smt. LaxmiGupta W/o Amrit Saheb Gupta aged about 31 years, 2) Atul S/o Amrit Saheb Gupta, aged about 17 years, (As per cause title of family court aged about lO years) Minor through legal representative of Mother Smt Laxmi Gupta W/o Amrit Saheb Gupta, R/o Village Ganiyari, Police station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently residing at Janjgir, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) WW»WW . Be m A};Ii WW 200 <m§¥rm (W3) mmm ~Q’ maintenance. The Court has aiso rtaken into consideration the source of income of the appiicant that the appiicant is running a utensiis shops, operating sewing machine and having We acres of agriculturai land. Even assuming that the non-appiicant Noii has been earning Rs.‘200-3i30 per month, it cannot be said that tte Court beiow exorbitantiy increased the maintenance to Rs.400 to Rs.i:ii00/—. The submission of iearned counsei for the petitioner that while awarding Rst 000/- to non-applicant no.1 the materiai on record that she is earning Rs zGU duu has not oeen taken into . The court petow has passed a detaiied order and has aiso taken into onstderation the evidence regarding non- appiicant No.1 earning Rs.200—3 G per month in para i't in its order and has finaiiv arrived to the conciusion that in the circumstances; non-appiicant No.1 is entitied to maintenance o Rs.1‘ EOOOia in the opinion of this C urt! there is no iiiegaiity in the findings ‘ recorded by the Court beiow and i am not inclined to interfere with the order in exercise of revisionai jurisdicti n. in the result; i do not fi d any merit. The revision is therefore dismissed. WWW WWW consideration, cannot be accept Sdl- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge WWW, W—FsmFz/zou—Lsomoo.