.—j^ Bi3 K ESGft INTHEHIGHCOURTOF.JUDICATUREAT BILSPURFC.G.1 CrimihatRfivjsionNo. 1 ^4f /2006 PETITIONER NON-APPUGANT VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ KaUash Biharf TCaushik (Jaiswal) "S/ o Bidurlal Jaiswal Aged-about 35 years, R/o- Village-Tarda, Tahsil- Korba, Distt.- Korba [C.G.]t . M ! . : 1. Smt. Bllagwati Jaiswal W/o Kailash Bihari K&ushik (Jaiswal) Aged- about 30 years /" 2. Vijay Laxmi D/o Kailash Bi)a:ari Jaiswal .i^ed- about 12 years (Minor) Through- her inother BhagwatfJai^wal 3. Jawaliar S/o Kailash Bihari Jaiswal Aged- about 5 years (minor) Through- her m.dfher Bhagwati Jaiswal ~\ AU are the R/o M.P,5«B. Colony, 7 Korba,Distt.-Korba'[C.G.] CRIMINAL REVl6l©NUWfiEa&SEeTION 397 AND 401 OF : THE eoDE-;l<ar'^j@^H)iiiiESI|R^ SEX^ON t9l^lOr^HWB'jMMI]^<^ ti ][ XI-HC-78 sn^r^TR.fi* (rar3<i^<i shfi'h ^ 3S? •<II<IM<<, wiflwie, f°iMi'K3< . ^r^.^Aw.No- \\i\\ ^wwi Sh*llth ^; 200^, Sli^i <ia<»('y<l3'!lSIil) v B'Kiiwffersn^T 20.07.2006 Shri Sanjay Patel.counsel fprVhe appltcant. Shrf H.B. Agaiwal, senior counsel forthe non-appltoants. Leamed counsel for the a <:ii <t>i<ifa<l1-< fiH<'iT?Ts<<'l <Ri<^i< ^si^irgn^r counsel with Shri Pantaj Agarwal, ?plicant submitted that he does not stay and prayed ttiat this criminat press M.CrP. No. 3540006 ftt| revision be heard and finally di"sitosed of, at the stage of admission today. Not opposed.. As prayed, M.Cr.P.No.354^ro6 is cBsmissed as n<* pressed. This criminal revision is t|eard finally today at the stage of admission. Leamed counsel for the atlplteart submitted at the very outset that he would press this revision (frnly on the ground that the quantum Family Court, Dfstt Koitoa in M.JC. 1.2006 te excessWe and cteserves to of maintenance awarded by the No. 207/2005 vide orcter dated 23.f bereduced. On the other hand, leamep senior counsel a^earing for the non-applicant afgued in support of|the impigned orderwhlte submltting that he has no objection if the m^intenance awarded to the daughter non-applicant No. 2 Vijay Laxmi i^ made at par with the maintenance awarded to the son non-appHcant Itto. 3 Jawahar. Havjng heard the rival subr|r)issions, I have perused the recorct. The applicant eams a net monttit in possessfon of agricultural lands) is derived. The Family Court has ^warded maintenance of Rs. 1,50Q/- to the wife non-applicant No. 1, salary af Rs, 9,134/- besKfes being in vitlage Tarda from which income Rs. 1.000/- to the daughter non-_ <;., '^ ,^ XI-HC-78 *iwwi sh*l|ch 3^ •<ll<)|cl<), ©Tnu'is,fadltiy — ^•:.'t«".-N^...V ^^......^.-.;..-......^. ^ ^Q^ Sit^ifi ia<n (4?<id'il'i?y) sii^rwf^riq; ^n''3ll^t Sh*1 TOfRKHfersn^r 2_ <nraFCT<l1i iiitiT^'tei^l'dSreeK ^ ^?3t)^tT3II^T applicant No, 2, and a sum of RsySQt- to the minor son non-appll<ant No. 3. So far as the maintenanc wife and the non-applicant No. 3 4 awarded to the non-applicant no. 1 ^on is concerned, It is adequate and tore minimum required for sutvival and does not call for any interference. However, so far as the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- <f) awarded to the daughter no[)fa|)pllcant No. 2, it appeare just and tintenance granted to the son non- ^ or infirmity is seen or pointed out in proper to equate it with the'rh applicant No. 3. No other illegali the impugned order. This revision is partly allotfed. The maintenance awarcted by the Family Court, Distt. Korba Vp the wife non-appltoart No.1 Smt. Bhegwati Jaiswal and to the s n ron-applteant No. 3 Jawahar is maintatned. However, the maint^nance awarded to the daughter non- applteant No.2 Vijaya Laxml is rec|uced to Rs. 7SO/- per month. , .•<' Sd- . Judge <:..