2025:CGHC:1125 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 6 of 2025

1 - Naveen Daharji S/o Late Sitaram Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Behind Police Station Abhanpur Basti Abhanpur District - Raipur (C.G.) (Non Applicant)

... Applicant versus

1 - Sandhya Daharji W/o Naveen Daharju Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Kukri Talab Raipur Chhattisgarh (Applicants) 2 - Ku. Wamika Daharji D/o Naveen Daharji Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sandhya Daharji R/o Near Kukri Talab Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) :

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Order on Board

08/01/2025

1. The present CRR is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Second Principle Judge Family Court Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 277/2024 whereby the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 5000/- to respondent no.2) per month without considering the material available on record.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.05.2022 the applicant had solemnized marriage along with respondent no. 1 according to Hindu Custom in Arya Temple Baijnathpara, Raipur since then the respondent no. 1 was living with the applicant as wife at her matrimonial house and on 04.03.2023 a daughter was born by their wedlock. After some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members were harassing and torturing the respondent no. 1 and demanding dowry after which she left her matrimonial house and started residing along with her daughter (respondent no.2) at her parental house. Respondent no. 1 has no source of income to survive and applicant is running business of choice center and hence respondents had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance with application for seeking interim maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the order passed by the learned family court is illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. He further contended that his old age mother and other family members are totally dependent upon the applicant and the respondent has left her matrimonial house without any sufficient reason and has not made any effort to come back and reside with the applicant.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

5. Perusal of record shows that the applicant is running a business of choice center and respondent no. 1 is wife of the applicant and respondent no. 2 is the daughter aged about 1 year of the applicant. The learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur has awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenace in favour of the respondents. Respondent no. 2 is the minor daughter who is aged about 1 year who needs more care. The rate of items of daily needs are increasing day by day. The rate of per litre of milk ranges from Rs. 60/- to Rs. 70/- that means per month cost of milk ranges from Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2100/-. There are other expenses also which is necessary for good care of a minor child.

6. In the case-in-hand, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur is just and reasonable and needs no interference. Therefore, the present CRR deserves to be and is hereby rejected.

SD/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE Madhurima