1 2025:CGHC:16293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 258 of 2023 Jagmohan Kushwaha S/o Shri Lalo Kushwaha Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Majhauli, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Appellant/Defendant versus 1 - Sangeeta W/o Jagmohan Aged About 40 Years R/o Nagar Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur (C.G.) At Present R/o Nagar Panchayat, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Fulkumari @ Devanshi D/o Jagmohan Aged About 18 Years R/o Nagar Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur (C.G.) At Present R/o Nagar Panchayat, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondents/Plaintiffs For Appellant : Mr. DN Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 07/04/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.8.2023 passed by Upper District Judge, Pratappur, Distt. Surajpur (CG) in Civil Suit No.20A/2019, whereby amount of maintenance has been granted in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. (For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court) BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.04.09 10:15:42 +0530 2 2. Facts of the case, in brief are that, the plaintiffs filed civil suit against the defendant stating inter alia that plaintiff No.1 is legally wedded wife of the defendant and from their wedlock, they were blessed with a girl child namely Phoolkumari @ Devanshi, who is plaintiff No.2. Subsequently, the defendant deserted the plaintiffs and kept second wife. It was further pleaded that the defendant was posted as Teacher and earned salary of Rs.40,000/- per month, but he is not maintaining the plaintiffs, therefore, they filed civil suit for recovery of maintenance amount and amount on various other heads. 3. The defendant/husband (appellant herein) filed written statement, in which he accepted that plaintiff No.1 is his legally wedded wife and plaintiff No.2 is their daughter. But he has stated that plaintiff No.1 had herself left his company. It has further been pleaded that plaintiff No.1 is having her own source of income rather, defendant is having liability to maintain his old aged parents. 4. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial Court framed 5 issues, recorded evidence of both the parties and after considering the evidence and contention of the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 22.8.2023 granted decree in favour of the plaintiff No.1 & 2 in the manner that, Rs.5,000/- & Rs.3,000/- per month respectively for their maintenance; Rs.5,50,000/- towards education expenses of plaintiff No.2 and Rs. 5,00,000/- for marriage of plaintiff No.2 and Rs. 10,00,000/- for their residential expenses, which has directed to be paid by the defendant. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred instant appeal. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the defendant/appellant would submit that he is not disputing the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of holding liability of the defendant to maintain the plaintiffs as they are his wife and daughter, but he would confine his contention only with regard to 3 excessive amount granted on various heads. He would further submit that at present, total salary of defendant is about Rs.42,000/- per month and he has taken loan of Rs.7,50,000/- from the bank, to which he has to pay installment. He has also to maintain his old aged parents, his second wife and three children from his second wife, out of which one daughter is married. Therefore, having considered the liability of the defendant, amount granted in various heads are highly excessive and the same may be reduced suitably. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents herein would support the quantum of amount granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs. As per the counsel for the plaintiffs, considering present price index and inflation, it cannot be held that the amount granted by the trial Court is excessive. He would further submit that, apart from the salary, agricultural land and residential plot are owned by the defendant, whereas the plaintiffs have no land, no source of income and they are residing in rented house. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record. 8. The defendant did not challenge the liability part of the judgment to maintain the plaintiffs, who are his legally wedded wife and daughter. He confined his argument only towards quantum of amount granted to the plaintiffs in various heads, which is excessive as per his contention. 9. Vide impugned judgment and decree, the learned trial Court has granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to plaintiff No.1 Smt. Sangeeta and Rs.3,000/- per month to his daughter/plaintiff No.2 Devanshi till she gets married or starts earning on her own, which ever is earlier; Rs.5,50,000/- towards expenses incurred in pursuing BAMS course to daughter Devanshi; Rs.5,00,000/- for marriage expenses of Devanshi and Rs.10,00,000/- for 4 residential expenditure of the plaintiffs or the defendant will give property to them in lieu of above amount, if the plaintiffs agree. 10. Undisputedly, the defendant works as teacher, presently posted as Headmaster and earns about Rs.40,000/- per month as salary. 11. As per the deposition of plaintiff No.1 Sangeeta, the defendant also has about 20 acres of land, tractor, pick up vehicle, which is also supported by Shivdhan Kushwaha (PW-2), Ram Naresh Kushwaha (PW-3). In this regard, the plaintiffs have filed revenue documents (Ex-P/11 to P/14), according to which, the defendant and his son Deepak possess agricultural land about 5 acres. The defendant Jagmohan Kushwasa (DW-1) also admitted in his examination-in-chief that he hold some agricultural land. His witness Haldhar Prasad (DW-2) has also admitted that the defendant has ancestral property at village Kogwar and Majhouli, but they have not stated that how much actual land is owned by the defendant. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it is proved that the defendant own and possess agricultural land, as such, he also earns income from his agricultural land. 12. Though plaintiff No.1 Sangeeta has admitted that earlier she was working in Anganbadi from 2007 to 2014, but she left the job in the year 2014. She has also admitted that she has 05 decimal land in village Wadrafnagar and as per Ex-D/11, Awas has been sanctioned to her in that land. But as per the statement of Sangeeta, she has started constructing house in that land, but the same is incomplete. 13. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the defendant to prove the fact that the plaintiffs are having any property or having any source of income to maintain their livelihood. 14. The defendant earns monthly salary about Rs.40,000/-. He is also having income from the agricultural land. Having considered such income of 5 the defendant and looking to the present price index and inflation and further considering the fact that, till date the defendant has not paid decreetal amount to the plaintiffs, granting aforesaid amount in various heads to the plaintiffs, cannot be held to be excessive. 15. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in the instant appeal. The same being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini