BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR. REV. N0. ^v^ /2010 'llt APPLICANTS 1. Smt. Salochani Sahu @ Saroj Sahu, aged about 35 years, W/o Shri Mahesh Sahu '•^ 2. '^•^ .,»- -,\v^f^ ...."^. -:5 "^^^ \v Ku. Garima Sahu @ Varsha Sahu, aged about 14 years (Minor) through her natural guardian - mother - Smt Salochani Sahu Both are Resident of - Police Line, Behind Tahsil OfEce, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) Presently resided in Qtr No. 17, New Police Line - Kuraharpara, Narayanpur Distt. Bastar (CG) VERSUS Mahesh Sahu, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Shikpal Sahu, occupation Constable, Office of Superintendent of Police, Computer Section, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG) CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19{4)_OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT. RESPONDENT G—78 3|I^IWft:lNT ^ssn sn^'s^ih? 'Src! •^l.'illtrl-M, ®flly'i<o,fsidiuy 31I^?I'<T^? (15?f3^tt) TOIWt ^ifta SfI^T ^)(^[<n<fhT ^wv\\ ^ is^l ^I<-$R ^sffiitIST'^T SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra M 10-114ffl10 n Shrivastava. J. Shri Arun Shukla, counsel] Heard on admission. This petition is directed A/1) passed by the Famity Cou(t allcwed applicant's application against appltoant's claim ofboth ofthem. Assailing correctness and| applicant argued that the tearnetl ignoring that the non-applicant isj and he has other sources of incb Smt. Salochani with who he hc rup^s Eight lakhs. From the order impugned| enhanced the amount by an amount of Rs.500/-. The after considering that the Non-t hand, after all deductions. In s( concerned, the court below has| that there is any othersource of in the name of Smt. Salochani ant In the opinion of this court below, enhancement of mainten^ of mainterfance for the appellant. abainst order dated 8/10/2010 (Annexure by whteh the Family Court has partly for enhancement of maintenance as of enha|icement to 6,0001- per month in respect tvalidity of order, leamed counsel for the court below has committed illegality in Igetting Rs.16,000/- per month as salary inclame which is inferred from the fact that married has purehased a vehicte for <<5 it is reflected that the Court below has in respect of each of the apptioants 3ourt below has oome to the conclusjon applicant gets Rs.9072/- per month in 3 far as income from other sources is iheld that there is no evidence to show |ncome and vehicle has been purchased a not in thename ofthe applicant. I, on the material basis before the Court ince to the extent of Rs.500/- in respect .^-'^*38^,. :.<s-^? ''. ••XI-HC—78 'S'ST "41'41<yl'4, Hltil'M'IS, fs|C'1l-My,< 311^1 ^F'fyiq; wnsit^rgnw Lawffl aiI^T 'q^? (1c!fj'sl'CEI) TRTOR ^tfet •BI^T uf eauti uf Uie appliuaiilb dppeijiib lu by ju&tified and 1 do not find any iSB reason to interfere with the order In case, the applicants Court that the non-applicant ha| need ofthe applfcants is also in| be incurred; it will be open for th| enhancement of amourt of mainl With the aforesaid observWions ^ire able to establish before the Family ib other sources of income and that the i(;reased because of various expenses to i^ applicants to move fresh applioation for lenance. >, the revision is dismissed. ^iTGfF^Tq^ "W^ff ^f ^^ <p3r+tcl< ^aifOTsn^r Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge