^, A' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) F. A. (M) N0. ^^—OF 2010JD.BJ n._ . . APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT .-^ ^ w ^ •••"."..,s^ "",\..^ ^"5^ ^I...- "^••" RESPONDENT APPLICANT ^, Rajkumar Pathak, aged about 48 years S/o Late Shri Lalji Pathak, Teacher, Govt. Middle School Nevsa, Gourella, District Bilaspur (C.G.). <^^V*t^^<^ At present posted at Govt. Middle •'fn<\^'"v.,- School Banjhorkha (Khodri), Block Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS Ku. Neelima Pathak, aged about 22 years D/o Shri Rajkumar Pathak, R/o Maharshi Chowk Mangla, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 HIGH COURT OF AT FA(MiNo.77of2010 Ku. Namita Pathak Versus Shn Rajkumar P^thak FA(iV!)No.78of20in K.u. Njllma Pathak Shri Rajkuma.r PathaR (Non-aDDlicant Respondent (Non-aDpllcanti Present : Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advc?cate for the appeiiant. Shri Saieem Kazi, Advocate for respondent. FA(M)Mo,51 of 2010 Rajkumar Pathak Versus Ku. Namita P'afhak FA(M)No.52of2010 Rajkumar Psthak Versvs Ku. Neeilma PathaR A@@ei|ant (Non-aDDSicant) (appljcant) Memo pf Appea! under Section 19 C1) of the Famjly Court AcL1^8_4_ DB: Hon'bie Shri Jystice IM. Qyddysi & Hon'ble Shri Jystice N. K. Agan^al. Present : Shri Saleem KazJ, Advocate for the appejtgnt. Shri iVlaiay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for respondent. \•t l^ ..^fegp ^^^^ i'^ •^ •^^-^ ORAL (Passed on 271" day of August, Per I.M, Quddusi, J. 1. By this common order FA(M) Nos. 77, 78, 51 and 52 o'? 2010 are being disposed of as common facte and Issues are involved in these appea!.s. 2. These are four appeals filed against two orders of the Family Court, Bilaspur, In respect of two glrls namely Neeiim? Pathak and Ku. Namita Pathak. The girts have fHed two appeat Nos. 77 and 78 of 2010 for enhancement of maintenance amount fixed by the Family Court, Biiaspur, under the Hjndu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956'), and the other two appea! Nos, 51 and 52 of 2010 have been filed by the father of the girls for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Faml'y Court, Biiaspur. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, Ku. Mee'lma P^thak, when she was aged about 22 years, filed MJC case No. 03/07 on 10.01.2007 before the Family Court, BHaspur, ciaiming maintenance under Section 20 (3) ofthe Act, 1956, in which she has prayed Rs. 5000/- for ediication, Rs. 1500/- for maintenanee and Rs. 8 Lakhs for marriage expenses ag^inst her father. 4. The other daughter Ku. Namita Pathsk, vvhen she was sged about 20 years, flled MJC case No. 04/07 on 10.01.2007 before the Famjiy Court, Biiaspur claimlng the same amount .^s^\^ ^^j ^f./ • <•:-... of malntenance which was ciaimed by her sister Ku. Meel'm? Pathak. 5. Both the petitions were dlsposed of by the Famlly Court, Bilaspur, by separate judgment and order on the same date i.e. 08.04.2010, fixlng the maintenance as Rs, 350n/- per month and Rs. 2 Lakhs for mamage expenses. 6. Father Rajkumar Pathak, who is present in the court a!ong with his counsel, fiied two appea! Nos. 51 and 52 of 2010 against the aforesaid two orders of the Famiiy Codrt, Bilaspur, as aiready mentioned above. 7. It is not disputed that the father is having 10 Acres of agricultural iand and he is a Teacher getthg Rs. 25,000/- per month as salary. !t Is also not disputed that besldes Ku Neelima and Ku. Namita Pathak, there is another daughter namely Ku. Megha Pathak and wife of the appeiisnt of Appeal Nos. 51 and 52 of 2010 Smt. Padma Pathak !t js atso a fact that there is a dispute between the famliy. 8. Other facts are not necessary to mention here at thls stag^ because of the reason that we fee! that the FamiJy Coi irt has decided only two petitions separately fited by the two sist^rs Ku. Neeiima and Ku. Namita Pathak w'+hout consldenng regarding the number of persons and number of' dependents entitled to maintenance under that Act with other factore, and a!so that joint appiication fiied under Section 125 of Cr.P.C on behaif of wife and other daughter is pending for disposa! 9. before the Family Court, Bilaspur, number of wh'oh has been informed to this court as MJC case No. 06/07- It is necessary to peru.se the relevant provlsions of Section 23 of the Act, 1 956, which are quoted as under- " 23. Amount of malntenance.- (1) (2) XXX XXX In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a wife, chiidren or aged or infirm parents under this Act< regard shali be had to- (a) the position and stat.us of the parties; (b) the reasonabie wants of the claimant; (c) if the ciaimant is !Mng separatejy, whether the claimant is justified in doing so: (d) the value of the claimant's propert^/ and any income derived from such property , or from the claimant's own eamings or from any other sources; (e) the number of persons entitled to majntenance under this Act (3) In determining the amount. of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a dependent under this Act, regard shall be had to.- (a) the net value of the estate of the deceased after providing for the payment of his debts; (b) the provision, if any, made under a wi!l of the deceased in respect of the dependant; (c) the degree of relationship befr.'veen the two; (d) the reasonabie wants of the dependant; (e) the past relations befr^een the dependant and the deceased; (f) the value of the property of the dependant and any income derived from such property: ^c^ .,»^- or from his or her earnings or from any other source; (g) the number of dependants entitled to maintenance under this Act/' 10. In view of the above, number of persons and the number of dependents entitied to maintenance under the Act aiso to be considered while disposing ofthe app!lcatlons. 11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the assets and income of the father, we are of the opinion that the malntenance of Rs. 3500/- per month and Rs. 2 Lakhs for mamage expenses be maintained subject to the direction that the Family Court shall consider the possibiljty of alteratlon of maintenance amount considering the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 1956. 12. We are passing this order keeping in v'ew that the maintenance amount awarded by the Famjiy Court sha!! not be stopped because of the direction for consideration of the Family Court in view of Section 23 ofthe Act, 1956. 13. In view of abovementioned facts and circumstances, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Bllaspur, to re-consider the matter regarding question of aJteration of malntenance amount jn the light of Section 23 of the Act, 1956. 14. !n the meantime, the father Rajkumar Pathak shail continue to pay the maintenance amount as fixed by the Family Court, Biiaspur, vide impugned orders and sha!! aiso depos't the amount fixed for marriage expenses. However,, the ^mount \ e^ ^^^.- .'^.^ . i ^'T%^ ^^ \^^^ ^c^ .^ "^.-^ "v^ '%-^-^-,,rfrr't"..' 15. 16. fixed for marriage expenses shall remain !n fixed deposit with any Nationalized Bank for a period of one year, may be extended from year to year, and shall not be encashed without leave of the Family Court on getting a proof that the marriage is to be soiemnized. However, thls vwl! be subject to further orders passed by the Family Court on re- consideration ofthe afteration ofthe maintenance amount With the above observation and direction, the FA(M) Mos 77, 78, 51 and 52 of 2010 stand dlsposed of No order asto costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu