HIGH COURT OF CHHT!SRH BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.330 of 2008 PETITNER: Banshidhar Padmawar aged about 62 years, S/o Late Rikhiram Padmawar, Patharidih, (Near Sarpanch House), Thana Urla (Birgaon), Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) (Original Non—Applicant Versus ESPNDENTS Smt. Anusuiya Bai /o Banshidhar Padmawar aged about 56 years, Ku Klshon aged about 32 years D/o Banshidhar Padmawar Ku. Manisha aged about 25 years, D/o Banshidhar Padmawar u o K. Shobha aged about 22 years, D/, Banshidhar Padmawar, Ku Radhlka aged about 18 years D/o Banshldhar Padmawar * Temple, All R/o near Dattatreya Brahmapuri, Raipur (C.G.) {Criminal reVIsmn under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act 1984 rea With Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973} Prest: en Mr. Anant Bajpai, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Vivek Rahtore, counsel for the non-applicants. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (9—2-201 1) Heard on l.A.No.1/2008, for condonation of delay in filing the revision. Present revision has been preferred after thirty-two days of its limitation.‘ On.due consideration, l.A.No.1/2008 is allowed. e i linhe evision is hereby condoned. I . Also heard on admission. ATGA w IO ) RO: W , d . '. . Dlay n figt r 2 By this revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the applicant has challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 22-12- 2007 passed by the ist Additional Principal‘Judge, Family Court, Raipur,, ‘ s l in Misc. Criminal Case No.99/2007, Whereby learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has enhanced the amount of maintenance awarded to non-applicants No.2 & 5 herein namely Ku. Kishori & Ku. Radhika, respectively, vide order dated 13-8—90 passed by the Additional .Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in Criminal Case No.185l89, from Rs.150/- per month to Rs.1 ,000/— per month each. Learned counsel-for the applicant submits that non—applicants No.2 & 5 herein are married daughters of the applicant herein and their marriage has been solemnized, ,therefore, they are not entitled 'for an maintenance. . On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes th reVISIOn. . As per reply filed by the applicant herein before the trial Court, non— applicants No.2 & 5 herein are still unmarried daughters of the applicant, initially Rs.150/— per month was awarded to each of them under Section 125 of the CrPC vide order dated 13-8-90 and thereafter, vide order dated 22-12-2007, after lapse of seventeen years, it has been enhanced from Rs.150l- per month to Rs.1 ,OOO/- per month each. Considering price index, cost of living and age of non-applicants No.2 5, while enhancing the amount of maintenance, learned Additiona Principal Judge, Family Court has not committed any illegality requiring interference under revisional jurisdiction. 10.Consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, at the admission stage itself. 11.l.A.No.2 for stay, stands disposed of. ”‘M’sdl- T. P. Sharma Judge/ ”gr g i Soma . . y, , e . & l T