1. ‘By this revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, the applicant has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 19-6- 2007 passed by the Judge, Family Court,vKorba in Criminal MJC No.63/2007 whereby Iearned Judge, Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- perVmonth to each of the non-applicants i.e. vvife & children of the applicant, under Section 125 of the CrPC. 2. l have heard Iearned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of the Family Court. 3. Evidence of the parties and the order impugned reveals that non- applicant No.1 is wife of the applicant and non-applicants No.2 & 3 are daughters of the applicant. The applicant is under obligation to pa HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR O §§§ Criminal Revision No.633 of 2007 No.1 & 2 ‘MINOR’, through guardian mother Smt. Vandana Singh N.A.No.1. All resident of Moti Sagar Paara Korba, Thana Kotwali, District Korba ‘Chhattisgarh’. {Criminal revision under Section 19 sub-section (4) ofthe Family Courts Act v s,- read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. R.N. Jha, counsel for the applicant Mr. Sanjay Patel, counsel for the non-applicants. _Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORALORDER (3L320rn y ~ APPLICANT/: Ranjeet Singh, S/o (Non-applicant) Baijnath Singh, aged 32 years, resident of Janjgir, behind P.H.C., Police Station & District Janjgir ‘Chhattisgarh’. Versus NON-APPLICANTS/: 1, Smt. Vandana Singh, W/o (Applicants) Ranjeet Singh, aged 25 years, 2. Ku. Shefaii, D/o Ranjeet Singh, aged 10 years, 3. Ku. Vaishali, D/o Ranjeet Singh, aged 9 - years, 2 @9 maintenance to non-applicants No.2 & 3 and non~applicants No.2 & 3 are not under obligation to prove the fact that why they are iiving 4. As regards the question of separate living of non—applicant No.1 and claim of maintenance, non~applicant No.1 was under obligation to prove the fact that she is living separately from her husband under just and herein, reasonable reveals cause. that after Para compromise 7 of evidence in of the Ranjeet Lok Adalat Singh he — the was applicant residing and took his both children with him and started paying maintenance of Rs.500/— per month to non-applicantvNod . This evidence is sufficient to establish the fact that non-applicant No.1 is residing separately under separately. just and reasonable cause and the applicant has neglected her. . After considering the material produced on behalf of the parties, the Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to each of the non-applicants. Considering the present cost of living and price index, the amount of award is not excessive requiring any interference. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. i.A.No.2/2007 stands disposed or. / ‘ /: T_ P. Sdl sharma ‘ Judge ~ "-/<’rf/V/ . / / t