^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Ti^5- First Appeal'ho"._51 _/2011 APPELLANT:- ^••d)^ ...' ^c^ M. Rajababu S/o Late M.C. Rao, aged about 28 years, R/o Sector no. 4, road no. 5 Q. No. 5 B Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) ...-•^ ^••^' dy^ t^l RESPONDENTS? :- VERSUS M. Parvati W/o M. Rajababu, aged about 26 years R/o C/o M. Rajababu Rao, Aancal Plantation, In-front Narsary, Sector no. 3, Shivanand Nagar Raipur Tahsil 85 District Raipur (C.G.) FIRST APPEAL (M) UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT f^ t> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDLN, JJ Appellant Defendant Respondent First Appeal (M) No.57 of 2011 M. Rajababu Vs M. Parvati Present: Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (Oral) (18th August, 2011) Perl.M. Quddusi, J; 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.4:2011 passed by II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) in Case No.104A/10 deciding the application ofthe respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short "the Act"), whereby a lump sum of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards cost of the suit and Rs.300/- as expenses towards per hearing in favpur of the respondent. 2. The appellant is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant and as per his pay-slip, is getting a sum of Rs.4,210/- per month as salary from the employer. The respondent has been granted a sum ofRs.1,500/- per month under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. towards maintenance. 3. Under Seetion 24 of the Actrit has been provided that where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his suppori: and the necessary expenses of the proeeeding, jt may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the 1 '-..ss-^'' @ proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. K 4. Therefore, the income of the present appellant is relevant for the purpose of awarding maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. 5. As already mentioned above, the appellant is getting Rs.4,210/- per month as salary, out of which Rs.1,500/- should be deducted for payment towards maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to the respondent. Therefore, the remainder comes to Rs.2,710/-. The appellant had got compassionate appointment on account of death of his father in harness. The employment is given on compassionate basis only on the condition that he will maintain the widowof the deceased i.e. mother of the appellant and his other dependents. The other dependent, besides his widow mother, is his unmarried sister. Therefore, the appellant has to bear the expenses of these dependents compulsorily. 6. The Family Court has fixed Rs.300/- as expenses towards per hearing, which is payable to the respondent by the appellant as the respondent is to come from Raipur to Durg to attend the Court proceedings. 7. Admittedly, Raipur is 40-45 km far froip Durg. The respondent is allegedly unemployed. Therefore, in our opinion, if Rs.150/- is fixed as expenses towards per hearing, then it would suffice the purpose and the respondent would be able to meet the expenses incurred in "attending the Court proceedings on each date of hearing. Further, looking to the financiat'-status of the appellant and his liabilities, a sum of Rs.5000/- fixed by the Family Court also appears to be on much higher side and deserves to be reduced suitably. Accordingly, we reduce it and fix it at Rs. 3,000/-. ,'7- • s-^. ^ (ry 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 28.4.2011 is modified to the extent that in place of Rs.5,000/-, the respondent shall be entitled to receive a lump sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of the suit and in place of Rs.300/-, she shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.150/- as expenses towards per hearing. However, it is made clear that if the respondent does not come to attend the Court proceedings, then she shall not be entitled to get per hearing expenses of Rs.150/-. 9. LCR shall be sent back to the Family Court forthwith to proceed further. lO.Parties shall appear before the Family Court on 20 September, 2011. Sd/- sdy- I.M.Quddusi Judge G. Minhajuddin Judge b