s IN THE HON'BLEBIOH COURT OF CHHATfISGAftri At BILA^PUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION C227) N0. sv^ OF 2010 PETITIONER Defendant \^ .^ /^9^ ^•^y ^>''., -fS-"'.-y^ / Sht. Vidya Devi, W/o katan Kumar, D/o Shri Chhotelal, Cgste Khatik, aged gfctaut 37 years, R/o Jawahgl- Colony Negr Bus Stand Rgrngarh Road Mahud, Tahsi| Mahu^, District Douaa, Rajsthan ^e~- A" VERSUS o- RESPONDENT Plaintiff /Ratan Kumgr Khatik, S/o Shri Kishorilal Kh^tik, aged about 37 years, R/o N.C.P.H. Colliery, Police Statioh Chirmiri, Tafisil KhaciQawa, District Koriya (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OFINOIA ..-.*asa HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SB: HON'BLB SHRI JUSTICE PRASHANT KUBSAR MISHRA WRIT PETITION $2271 No. 5424 of 2010 Siat. Vidya Devi Vs. Ratan Kumar Khatik WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION Mr. P.P. Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent, though served. ORDER (ORAL1 (27.01.2011) Heard. 2. By fhis writ petition filed uader Article 227 of fhe Coastitution of India, the petitioner has assafled fbe legaUty aad validity offhe impugned order dated 31.07.2010 passed by fhe Family Court, Mauendragarh, allowiag inaintenaace pendente lite @ Rs. 1000/ - per laontli only. •i Petitioner is seeking enhaaceinent of the amount of iaterim maintenance. A petition u/s 13 ofthe Hiadu Marriage Act, 1955 fcr grant of divorce has beea preferred by fhe respondent. During tlie pendency offhe said divorce petition, the petitioner inoved aa application u/s 24 of the Hiadu Marriage Act for graiit of inaiatenance @ Rs.5000/- for herself and Rs.2000/- for her daughter aad ia addition, Rs.5000/- for Utigation expenses for each date ofheariiig. ^! ^£s%. f e. -'• i I ^sPS'is^ ! .1 ".SiiS'BS^ 1 ~^ 'y '%. ^l', %»J15 4. It is also not iu dispute fhat the petitioner and her daughter have been allowed Rs.2500/- each per inonth as niaiatenaace ia proceeding u/s 125 offhe Code ofCriiniual Procedure. 5. In para 4 of her appUcation (Aunexure P-3), fhe petitioner has ineutioned fhat the respondent is working as Under Manstger iu G.M. Coinplex, S.E.C.L. TIiis fact has not been denied by fhe respondent ia his reply (Aiinexure P-4). 6. In so far as fhe Utigation expenses are concemed, it has been observed bv the fainilv Court that an order to that effect was passed on 29.01.2010. The present petition is fhus ouly for enhaucenient offhe aiaormt of inaintenaace froin Rs.1000/- to Rs.7000/- as prayed in the appUcation. 7. The fact fhat the respondent is getting a salaiy of Rs.35,000/- per nionth froin his job in S.E.C.L., has not been controverted. Thus this court is incliiied to hold that respondent is getting Rs.35,000/- per inonfh as salaiy. Ordinarily, fhe wife is entiUed to l/5th of fhe ataouat of salary as iaterun inakitenance; therefore, she is entifled to interiin inaiutenance @ Rs.7000/- per inonth for her self ag also for her minnr daughter. Since fhe Magisterial Court has already graated coiupensation @ Rs.2500/- each per inonfh to fhe petitioner and her daughter (total Rs.5000/-) aud fhe famUy court has also granted Rs.1000/- per nionfh by the ' impugned order, the petitioner is uow entifled to an additional auiouat of Rs.1000/-. Thus fhe order passed by / the fanuly coiirt is luodi&ed to the extent that fhe petitioner .-•s^ ^ ^' Bh ^teB." shaU be entifled to the amount of Rs.2000/- per inonth as inauitenance. It is directed that ifthe respondent fails to satisfy fhe leamed FamUy Court fhat he has paid tbe amount of aiaiatenance as directed by fhe Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C., the fnmily Court shall be entiUed to execute fhe order for in^terun niauitenaace as if fhe petitioner is entifled to Rs.7000/- per month for her setf and her daughter as laaiatenance ia these proceedings. Witb fhe above direction, this petition staads finatly disposed ofat tlie inodon stage. Sd//- i Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao w.slS3!-!SSsS' ^^^^SSSSSSL-