Gurvinder Kaur v. Indervir Singh Saini

Digitallysigned byARUNARUNKUMARKUMARDEWANGANDEWANGANDate:2024.09.1110:41:56+0530 2024:CGHC:32746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 951 of 2024 1 - Gurvinder Kaur W/o Indervir Singh Saini Aged About 30 Years At- House No. 04, Harshit Tower, Near Panchdham Temple, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Indervir Singh Saini S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh Aged About 31 Years At- F 112, Income Tax Colony, Sector 21/22, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate. For Respondent: None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 28.08.2024 1.The applicant/wife has filed this criminal revision assailing order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 962/2023, by which the application filed by the applicant/wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the non-applicant has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month to the applicant. 18.06.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 962/2023, by which the application filed by the applicant/wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the non-applicant has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month to the applicant. 2.Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the amount awarded by the learned trial Court is inadequate to meet daily expenses of the applicant whereas the monthly income of the non-applicant is Rs. 2 lacs. He would further submit that from the income tax return, it is not clear the actually how much income the non-applicant is earning. He would further submit that the non-applicant is able to pay salary Rs. 65,000/- to his employee, therefore, looking to the status of the non-applicant and his earning, the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is on lower side and would pray for enhancing the amount of interim maintenance awarded to the applicant.by the learned trial Court is inadequate to meet daily expenses of the applicant whereas the monthly income of the non-applicant is Rs. 2 lacs. He would further submit that from the income tax return, it is not clear the actually how much income the non-applicant is earning. He would further submit that the non-applicant is able to pay salary Rs. 65,000/- to his employee, therefore, looking to the status of the non-applicant and his earning, the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is on lower side and would pray for enhancing the amount of interim maintenance awarded to the applicant. Arun 3.I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment and records of the trial Court.and records of the trial Court. Arun 3.I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment and records of the trial Court.and records of the trial Court. 4.The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the income tax return is showing less income or incorrect income, therefore, the amount of interim maintenance should be enhanced is being considered by this Court. The submission that the incorrect income has been shown in the income tax return, can be very well ascertained by the learned trial Court only after recording of evidence as the applicant has not filed any bank statement or resources from where the non-applicant is generating income. Even otherwise Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Rajensh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has considered the issue how the income has to be ascertained which can be done only after conducting some enquiry.return is showing less income or incorrect income, therefore, the amount of interim maintenance should be enhanced is being considered by this Court. The submission that the incorrect income has been shown in the income tax return, can be very well ascertained by the learned trial Court only after recording of evidence as the applicant has not filed any bank statement or resources from where the non-applicant is generating income. Even otherwise Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Rajensh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has considered the issue how the income has to be ascertained which can be done only after conducting some enquiry. 5.Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court.applicant and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court.6.Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the contention raised by the applicant and all the points raised by the applicant are left open and that may be decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material place before it. is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the contention raised by the applicant and all the points raised by the applicant are left open and that may be decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material place before it. 7.Learned Family Court is directed to decide the matter on its own merits expeditiously only on the basis of evidence and material place on record without being influenced from earlier order awarding interim maintenance Rs. 7000/- per month to the applicant. expeditiously only on the basis of evidence and material place on record without being influenced from earlier order awarding interim maintenance Rs. 7000/- per month to the applicant. 8.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance. compliance. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas)Judge