HSGH COURT OF CHHATT8SGARH AT BiLASPUR Criminal RevssioR No.525 of 2006 ApDiscants 1. Smt.Mamta Singh, W/o. Jairam Singh Pawar, aged 30 years, 2. Ku.KomaS Pawar, D/o Shri Jairam Singh Pawar, aged about 7 years. through her mother and natural guardian Smt Mamta Singh Both R/o. Quarter No.10/A, Stroot No.22, Sector-7, Bhiiai. P.S. - Kotvva!j Sector-6, Bhsiai, Tahsii & Osstrict Durg Versus Non-apDiicant Jairam Singh, S/o Kamalbhan Singh Pawar (Rajput). aged 35 years, R/o. Rajesh Mandavi Auto Repasrs Shop, viiiage Utai, P.S. Utai, TahsiS & District Durg (C.G.) (Criminai Revision under Sectson 19 (4) ofthe Famiiy Courts Act, 1984) (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Present:rts Mr.IVS.P.S.Shstla, counseS forthe appiicants. Mr.Adil Minhaj, counsei for the non-applscant. ORDtR(ORAL) (Passed on 2na February, 2011$ 1. By this revision, the appilcants have chaliengsd jegaiity and propriety of the orderdatsd 28.7.2006 passsd bythe Flrst Additionai PrincipaS Judge, Famiiy Court, Durg in Crimina! MJC No.299/05 wherebytho Fsrst Addltional Prindpa! Juclge whiie awarding maintQnance of Rs.1000/- per month to appiicant No.2 daughter has denied the malntenance to applicani No.1 on tho ground that sh©is rssiding separateiy from her husband l.e., non-appilcant without any just and reasonabio causo. 2. Brief fscts necessary for dlsposal of this revision are that appiicant No.1 and the non-applicant are iegally weddsd spouses snd appiicant No.2 is daughter of applicant No.1 and non-appiicant. As psr ciaim of appsicant No.1, non-appllcant has commltted torturo and crueSty upon hor, she Is not ab!o to malntsin herseif but non-appSlcant having sufficient means to maintain is not masntaining the appjicants. On ths aforesald ground, appiicatlon for masntenance under Sectlon 125 of ths Cr.P.C. has bsen fiied. By fiiing ths •£f ^-T) reply, the non-sppiicant has spscificaiiy alieged that he has not commttted any torture and crueSty upon appiicant No.1, applicant No.1 Is residing separateiy from hlm wlthout any roasonabie cause, thorefore, fhe §s not entitied for maintenance, even the non-applicant has fiied petition under Sectjon 9 of tho Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugaE nghts where prosent appiicant No.1 has not shown his wisSingness, tnerefore, petition was dismissed at fhe instance ofthe non-appiicant. After providing an opportunlty of hearing to the parties, the First Additiona! Prsncipai Judge, FamiSy Court, Durg has awarded mainteRancs of Rs.1000/- per month to appiicant No.2 but has denied the daim of maintenance to appilcant No.1 on the ground that appSicant No.1 is residing separatdy from her husband wlthout any just and reasonabje cause. 3. J have heard iearned counsej for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of the FamiSy Court. 4. Learned counsei for the appijcants submits that evidence adduced on behaif of both the parties inciuding documentary evidencs Exs.P/1 and P/3 are sufficiont for drawing inference that appSicant No.1 is resldjng separately under roasonabie cause and sho is entltlod for maintonance from the non-applicant, but FamiSy Court has denied the maintenance to spplicant No.1 and thereby commlttsd iJSsgaiity. 5. On th©other hand, iearned counsei for the non-applicant opposes the revision aRdsubmits that initiaSiy maintenance of Rs.1000/- wa®awarded to appiicant No.2, thereafter, the Famiiy Court has enhanced the amount of maintsnance from Rs.1000/- to Rs.1800/- and the non-appiteaRt is reguiariy paying snhanced amount of Rs.1800/- to appiicant No.2. The FamiSy Court has rightiy denled ths ciaim of appSicant No.1 on the ground that she Is residing separateiy from her husband not undsr just and reasonable cause but for the sake of her brother who had married wlth th®sister of th© r.on-appiicant and is serving in some office. 6. As per ©videnceadduced on behaif of the parties, especiaiSy evidsnce of appiicant No.1, present non-appiicant has committed torture and crueity upon her which has been dsnied by the non-appiicant, but the non-appiicant has admitted signature upon Ex.P/1 which reveaSsthat present non-appiicant is in habit of committing Sorture and crueSty and even he has written letter Ex.P/3 that h@ is ready for divorce. As per evidence of the non-appiicant, he has fieid petstion under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against appiscant No.1 B/- ~ <3~ which he has v/ithdrawn subsequentiy on the ground that appiicant No.1 ss not ready to Sive with him. 7. in these circumstances, virtuaiiy the non-appiicant was under obiigation to gst ciecide the matter finaiiy by the Court and not to withdraw the petition fiied undor Soctson 9 of the Hsndu SViarriage Act but reason bost known to the non-appSicant he has wrthdrawn the same. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and contents of Exs.P/1 and P/3, it ss dlfficuit to hold that appiicant N o.1 is resjdsng separatoiy from her husband without any ju^c and reasonabio cause, inter aisa, these evidences are sufficjont for tirawlng infsrencs that appiicant No.1 is reslding separatsiy under just and reasonabSo causo, therofore, sho is entstied for malntenance. 8. Whiie denying the maintsnance to appiicant No.1, the First Additional Principaj Judge, Famiiy Court, Durg has committedl iiiegaiity. Therefore, finding relatmg to deniai of maintenance to appilcant No.1 is not sustainabSe under tho iaw. 10.As per submission of ioarnod counsei for the non-appSicant, ©mountof maintenance awarded to applicant No.2, in the present case, has be©n revised and the non-appiicant is paying revssed amount of maintenance of Rs.1800/- per month to applicant No.2. 11.Considering the aforesaid fact, rsvision is partiy aiiowed. FJnding r©latingto deniat of masntenanco to applicant No.1 is horoby set assdo. Case is remitted back to the First Additionai Principa! Judge, Famuy Court, Durg for deddmg the quantum of amount of malntenanco awardabie to appSscant No.1 aftor providing an opporiunity of hsaring to the parities and adducing evldsnc®to both the parties. Parties are tiir©ctedto remain present before the Firet Additiona! Principai Judge, FamHyCourt, Durg on 14.3.2011. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge