Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 64 (CHH)

SAV1TRIBAI PRAJAPATI v. GORELAL PRAJAPATI

2014-02-13

P.SAM KOSHY

body2014
ORDER 1. By way of the instant criminal revision, the applicants have challenged the order dated 27.05.2013 passed by the Family Court, Korba in M.J.C. No. 87/2011. By way of the said judgment dated 27.05.2013 the learned Family Judge has partly allowed the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and ordered the non-applicant for payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No.1 as maintenance. 2. Facts leading to the instant case are that applicant No.1 is wife and applicant No.2 is unmarried daughter of the present non-applicant. Further case of the applicants is that for the last few years the non-applicant has not been maintaining the applicants and therefore finding it very difficulty to sustain themselves, the applicants had filed an application U/S 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Korba seeking maintenance from the non-applicant. 3. The learned Family Court, Korba after considering the evidences that have come on record and the contentions put forth by the parties, vide its order dated 27.05.2013 has partly allowed the claim of the applicants for grant of maintenance and ordered that applicant No.1 shall be entitled to get maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month from the non-applicant. 4. At the same time while disposing of the M.J.C., the learned Family Court has rejected the claim of applicant No.2 for grant of maintenance taking into consideration the fact that applicant No.2 is aged about 30 years. Since applicant No.2 is a major lady and has not been able to establish the fact that she is not able to maintain herself, the Court below has rejected her claim of maintenance. 5. It is this order of rejection for grant of maintenance to applicant No.2 which is under challenge in the instant criminal revision. In addition, through this revision, the applicants have also prayed for enhancing the amount of maintenance awarded by the Court below to applicant No.1 as the same is insufficient to maintain applicant No.1 herself. 6. Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of this High Court in the matter of Smt. Sushia Bai and another Vs. Bisauharam 2009(4) CGLJ 432 wherein this Court has relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim (2002) 5 SCC 422 and in the matter of Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Bisauharam 2009(4) CGLJ 432 wherein this Court has relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim (2002) 5 SCC 422 and in the matter of Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. lvlanju Lata and others (1997) 6 SCC 233 held that maintenance had been allowed to daughter even after they had attained the age of majority. If we see the judgment cited by the counsel for the applicants in the case of Smt. Sushila Bail (supra), in paragraph-13 it has been categorically held by this Court that an unmarried daughter is entitled for maintenance even after attainment of the age of majority, till her marriage, but she is required to prove her inability to maintain herself and that in spite of having sufficient means, her parents are not maintaining her. On plain reading of the said judgment, it is reflected that this Court has laid down the principle that the unmarried daughter would be entitle for maintenance only if she is able to establish before the Court by leading sufficient proof that she is unable to maintain herself. 7. If we peruse the statement of PW-3 who is applicant No.2 in the instant case, it is evidently clear that she has not been able to establish by giving any evidence whatsoever that she is not able to maintain herself and, therefore, she has sought for a relief of maintenance from her father i.e. the non-applicant. On the contrary, there is a statement of Bindu Mandal (PW4), a witness brought by the applicants themselves who is said to be the neighbour of the parties, wherein she has stated that applicants are staying together and applicant No.1 is having a source of income from by way of rent which she is collecting from the portions of the house that she have given on rent. This witness PW-4 has further stated that applicant No.2 also does the work of stitching from which also its establishes the fact that applicant No.2 is also able to earn something. This by itself mean that applicant No.2 can very well maintain herself. For this reason, the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sushila Bail (supra) would not come to rescue the applicant No.2. 8. This by itself mean that applicant No.2 can very well maintain herself. For this reason, the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sushila Bail (supra) would not come to rescue the applicant No.2. 8. Similarly, the case of Jagdish3 (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also would not come to the rescue of applicant No.2 on account of the fact that the said judgment was passed in the light of the facts that maintenance which was given to a minor daughter by virtue of proviso to Section 125 of Cr.P.C. wherein the maintenance was paid only till the daughter attained the age of majority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the said case held that when the minor daughter was getting maintenance, it could not have been stopped on her attaining the age of majority and force her to avail the remedy available to her for maintenance under Section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the said case to avoid multiplicity of litigation and therefore the ratio laid down in the said judgment also would not come to the rescue of the present applicant No.2. 9. In view of the above stated reasons, I do not find any illegality committed by the Court below in rejecting the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance in respect of applicant No.2, particularly in the back drop of the evidence of FW-4, a witness examined by the applicants themselves. 10. Further challenge of the applicants in the present revision is that applicant No.1 should have been given more maintenance taking into consideration the monthly income of the non-applicant. The said contention of the applicants also does not have any force for the reason that the Court below has already considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and only then awarded the maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month to applicant No.1. On perusal of the pay slip which have been produced by the applicants themselves it is established that the net income received by the non-applicant is only Rs. On perusal of the pay slip which have been produced by the applicants themselves it is established that the net income received by the non-applicant is only Rs. 7,000-8,000 per month of which the Court below has already awarded Rs.3,000 per month as maintenance to applicant No.1 which cannot be said to be too meager amount to sustain applicant No.1 herself and for the said reason also the prayer for enhancement of the maintenance amount in respect of applicant No.1 also does not have any force. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons, the instant criminal revision is dismissed holding it to be devoid of merits. Revision Dismissed.