A S RFM'lnR SisLC.' OK.nv^v ^0 ;.;.l!{i|li" iili IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOFCHHATraSGARH AT BILASPUR w.p.fzzyy NO. <:7>^>ss'~ OF 2009 WRIT PETETION UNbER SECTION UNDER ARTECLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTEON OF INDIA Petitioner v^^-^ ^" |,>o.l.--^V^y y"'''^^^-^'"" eaiaiS3"" ....•"••" ..-^il^ Respondent Alok Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Lal Babu Jaiswal, aged 36 years, R/o Ward No. 21, Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) Versys /-' Rashmi Jaiswal, D/o Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal,aged about 34 years, through V.K. Rai, 18/190, (Sayatri Nagar, Katni, Distt. Katni M.P.) 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER title. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENT W.P. (227) No. 7055/2009 Alok Kumar Jaiswal Versus Rashmi Jaiswal v SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT: SushriShamiila Singhai,Advocate, for petitioner. Sushri Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (19-1-2011) 1. With the consent of the parties, the niater is heard iinally. 2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 24- 10-2009 passed by the Family Court whereby petitioner's applicafion for adjustment of the amount of maintenance granted by fhe Magistrate under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. from the amount granted by the Family Court under Section 24 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act has been rejected. 3. Facts of the case according to the petitioner are that the respondent applied under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the petitioner in the court of J.M.F.C., Katni. The case was registered as M.J.C. No. 262/2006 and vide its order dated 27-10-2007, the court of J.M.F.C. has granted maintenance of Rs. 700/- to the wife and child of the petitioner.In the Family Court, the respondent again applied for grant ofinterim maintenanee ~and expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by suppressing the fact that the J.M.F.C. has already awarded Rs. 700/- to the respondent as well as her daughter Ku. Disha. The Family Court has granted Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance and Rs. 500/- as expenses. The objection filed by the petitioner before the Family Court for adjustment of the amount of maintenance granted by the jspun sSuTpasoojd ^BjuomuiBtu ui papjBAB ^unoure aqi ^sureS^ siqB^snfpB SBM aoLtBus^urei-a -toj "O'd'-iO jo sgi uoposg jspun pspJBMB XUOUIITB mustui jo ^unoure SLp. 'aAoqBuisjsq o^ paj-isjaj s^ '(Bjdns) uvtfpnmo daapng UT ^jnoQ au.iajdng sq^ jo uoisioap sv^ y> AVSTA u} •g ...... .gojBg gq^ SAoq^ pue JSAO usAiS sq o^ 4ou SBA pire sSmpasoojd {Biuomu^Bui 3vp. ui papjeAB ^unoure aq^ ^suregB atqB^snCp'e svs\ souBua^ureui joj 'O'd'-iO si-R jo SST uopoag jspun papjBAYB ^unoure aqj, -jojja UFS^M ^noQ qSTH 31P ^BT-0 M3tA aq^ jo SJB a^,, -:japun SB ^usmgpnf S^T jo 9 BJBd UT: piai-[ s^q '(Bjdns) t^wqpnvqQ daapns SSBO aq^ UT ^jnoQ sius-tdng S^UOH "Z •pauSnduii jspjo av^ pasruad pire sa^jed aq^ joj psunoo paujB3{ pjesq aABq i •g •psssiuisip aq o^ saAjassp uoppad aq^ pire ^usmaouequa ssjinba-i Jai.pjnj qoiqM lunoure j3§Baui B si JISS^T -/OOO'S •sy^ fevff. ^imqns p^noA piie paugndun jap.to arp ps^ioddns ^uspuodsaj: aq^ jioj psunoo p9Uje3{ 'pueq .tSLp.o sqi uo '3 'apiSB ^ss aq o^ ssAjassp pLre {B§ani Xpus^d ST pauSndun japjo sq^ 'sjojsjsqj, •3jiA o^ A:uomi{B SB ^oy 3§BUJBp\[ npuiH jo t7g uor(33g japun sSuipssoojd ^eiuoiuu^ui ui pspsews ^unoure aq^ ;sure§B s^q^snfpB ST 'o'd'-iO jo SST "OROag JSpun papJBA^ ^'UOUITIB uiua^ui jo ^unoure aip 'gg'S' 3S 6661 3IV ui pa^jodaj fitvnfpnini^ viipvy -a- &<x»ypn»tfodaapns jo asBO sq^ UT ^no^ suiajdng av^ SIC^UOH jo uoispap aip jo MSTA m ^BLp siiuiqns jsuoppad aq^ joj psunoo paujBsq •^ •pstsnfpB aq IOUUBO ^unoure sq^ pue ^usjsjjip sjre sguipaaoojd aip i-poq s^ passirasip SBM ^oy a§BU:jre]/\[ npuiH aqi jo ^z uopoag jspun ^jnoQ ^urej sip Aq psiuejg (noure aq^ uiojj •0"d'-IO jo 351: uopasg japun 3^j^sigB]/\[ Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Age as aliinony to wife which has not been done in the instant case. 9. In view of above, order inipugned being not sustainable i.inder law ?deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is reaiitted back to the court below for decision afresh on the application preferred by the petitioner in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sudeep Chaudhary (supra). It is directed that Che petitioner shall pay niaintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month instead of Rs. 2,000/- till the decision of the objection by the trial Court and thereafter shall pay the amount as per the decision of the Court below. 10. Parties are directed to remain present before the court below on 7-2-2011 before the Family Court. The Family Court shall decide the application expeditibusly. .-lA-- 7^^ "*"3ttA6<> p