THE HONBLE HIGH‘ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILAPUR S q b3) /2oo7 (s B ) a §1 $mk §w£ ALIANT PC HEMANT DUBY E S/ k Duby o Late Jana e Age (Not Shown 1n 1mune order 1sr1c ananaon (C U/ JVm L’ o o Hement Dube Age (ot Sown 1n 1mpune rder es1dent o aaara war as1 an e 1str1ct Dur C SMT MADHUDUBEY W/ y N h gd o) R f Nyp d 13 Th1 d P S Bmetara v D g ( G ) § APDLICATION UND 2 CO i l 2 E CRIMINAL OC “ (/P “o’b/ pgd ) Res1dent of llage an os Vl d Pt Bhereaon P S Lalag ‘yg b Dtt Rjdg G ) Cr;M.P. No I ER SECTION 487/125 OF THE DE ' OF PREDURE § E HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH : EILA$PUR . m1 :.i IegBench: Hon’ble . shn - . Mamndra . Monan . Snrwa . . . . $ stava J‘ CLMP. No.463i2907 § i » "1 Aknile5h Nnama counsel for the penner m Adu Mmnah counsei on benair er Sh'i P R aaiankar counsei _ ORIXL ORDnR (Paswd an 17‘" of Navembais 2011) Hard. 2. ‘This petition has been flied by the petitioner assailing correctness and‘ vahdm; or order dated 25/0 {/67 passed m cnmmai rewswn whereby the order '65 r grant of maintenance passed on 1314/07 has been pamy ahowed nies Es not disputed. The respendent fiied e '3. The marriage between-the pa e the an‘appiieation for grant of maintenance under Seciion 125 CrPC befc: Judiciai Magistrate 15i Class Bemetara. In the appiication, it was pieaded infer : a that the applicant subiected the respenaent to cruelty on acceum of which, ‘ the respondent is not nvmg With the applicant anal as she is unabie to warntam f herseif, i‘ne appiicant is under an ebligatien to previde maintenance. pleadedg‘that the applicant is earning handsomely and also possess some property and owns a shop too. ei: it was ‘ tue ETiTiONER Hemant Dubey a Versus REgpmga'ENT Smt‘ Madhu Dubey 4. 'Afte'r aiiowing the parties to iead orai and dacumentary evidence, éhe iearned Magistrate vide its order dated 134/2011 granted maintenance of Ks 3 COOL per month to the respondent trom the date of fimg of the appilcation Aggneved by the sard order a revrsron was preferred whrch has been partly allowed rhe reamed Revxsmnal Lourt has reduced the compensa amount or marmenance from Rs 3 0001— to Rs 1 500i- per month W ef th ‘ or passmg of the order. r e tt' , “w; 5. j Learned cgunsei for the petitioner contended that the award ot maintena‘gce i of Rs;1l,500i‘- per month and that toe from the date of submission of appltpation is grossiy disproportionate and exorbitant. He submits that the i evidence which has come on record oniy shows that the appiicant is engaged in, his own vocation from which, he is earning a meager’amount of Re'.400i— to Rs SOUL and in the absence or proof of any shop owned and run by the petitioner or any othe. landed property standing in the name of the petitioner award of maintenance @ Rst ,500/~ per month to the respondent is highiy exorbitant and atrocious. it is aiso submitted that the maintenance has been awarded ignoring that the respondent is iiving separateiy without any sufficient cause and reasons though the appiicant is wiiiing to keep his wife with him. 5. On the other hand, learned oounsei for the respondent submits that as tar as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, taking into consideration the prevailing price index on the date, the maintenance was awarded and'aiso taking into consideration that the petitioner is having capacity of earning and evidence which has come on record that he is earning on his own vocation, award of Rs.1,500/a cannot be said to be so exorbitant or outrageous as to warrant interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrF‘C. On the aspect of crueity, it is submitted that the finding has been recorded on .the basis of evidernceiavaiiabie 0n record and in these proceedings, this Court wouid not, as an appeiiete authoriéy enter into reassessment of fhe evidence, in the absence of there :beirég any case of gross perversity or patent iiiegaiity. 7. ;The evidence which has been ieci by both the parties, it is admitted ~that the peiiiieher is a heaithy person wiihoui any disabiiity and he has been invaiveni in his owh vocation. Though there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner is having any shop or any landed property, taking into consideration that the ppiicant is invoived-in his own vocation and except his mother, there is no ofher i ‘ . membier with him, award of Rafi ,500/~ cannot be said to be exorbitant, keeping in view th:e present price index. The order has been given effect to from the date of = making appiication. ;¢¥va: i§ ‘. 8. As far as other grounds of chaiienge are concerned, i have gone through ‘ i the evidence of both the parties including the documents which have been piaced on record. There is ampie evidence on record including categoric statement of the respondent that she was being harassed and subjected to cruelty, keeping in view that the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature, the standard of proof is not as high as in the civii cases or standard of proof in the criminai case. The Courts below have taken into ' consideration that’in the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner had stated that he wiii not harass his wife any more. Therefore, in the totality of the materiai evidence which has come on record, the finding which has been recorded, cannot be said to be perverse or tacking in evidence. e 9. There is however. one aspect 0f the matter wmch warrants interference by this Court it is found that the maintenance has been-awarded w.e.f. 30f08i2090 whereas the order of maintenance passed on 13i04i07. It is aiso found that at v tine time when the application was fiied, an appiication fer grant e? interim maintenance was moved and the same was rejected. Therefore, taking into consideration the source and means of income of the petitioner as appearing from the evidence which has come on record and reiied upon by the Comte We? beioiw, rt wouid be proper to reduce the iiabiiity of payment of maintenance tiii the date; of passing ofuorder Le. t3f4/07. it wouid be proper and wouid be expedient in t'rte interest of justice to modify the order to the extent that the arrears of maidten‘ance w.e.f. date of application tiii the date of order Le. 134/07 shat? be payabie only to the extent of 50% by the petitioner. The petition is accordingly x x e partly atlowed to the extent indicated above. ‘ /. § Sd/— [Manindra Mohan ShrivastaVa \ ' : yr“. Judge §~W~" ' l eepi iFi , ‘ ., . ywmtimmwr f i !