1 / 3 2025:CGHC:4073 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1159 of 2024 1 - Amrin Naaz W/o Mustafa Raza, Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Housewife 2 - Abiha Naaz D/o Mustafa Raza, Aged About 4 Years Minor, Through Guardian Amrin Naaz W/o Mustafa Raza, Both are presently R/o MIG-1-19/6, Jawahar Nagar, Near K.H. Memorial School, Bhilai, P.S.-Jamul, Tahsil And District-Durg (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - Mustafa Raza S/o Maulana Yahaya, Aged About 32 Years R/o Housing Board, Kailash Nagar, Near Masjid, P.S.-Jamul Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Priyanka Rai Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : None, despite service of notice. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 22/01/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant No.1 is a lady and have liability of her 4 years minor daughter. She would next contend that applicant No.1 was in mental pressure and is facing financial problems. It is further contended that Applicant No.1 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.25 11:32:27 +0530 2 / 3 was not having knowledge regarding litigation limitation. She would next contend that the husband is not providing any financial assistance to the applicants as directed by Court, therefore, the delay in filing the revision may kindly be condoned. 3. On due consideration and being satisfied with the reasons stated in the application (I.A. No.1/2024), the same is allowed and the delay of 310 days in filing the revision is condoned. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the applicant, the matter is heard finally. 5. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 02/09/2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg, C.G. in Case No.468/2022 whereby the interim application for grant of maintenance filed by the applicant/wife has been partially allowed and the non-applicant has been directed to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the applicant No.1 and Rs.2000/- to the applicant No.2 totaling to Rs.4500/- per month. This revision has been filed by the wife. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the non-applicant/respondent is working in Dubai and is a well earning person having its job and residence in Dubai, having an income of Rs.80,000/- per month and the applicant No.1 being a non-earning woman, therefore, the amount of interim maintenance may be enhanced. 7. No representation is made on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice. 3 / 3 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Perusal of the record would show that the Family Court has granted maintenance to applicant No.1 i.e. wife of the respondent to the tune of Rs.2500/- per month and Rs.2000/- to the applicant No.2 i.e. the minor daughter of about 04 years. Though the submission has been made by learned counsel for the applicants that Respondent is earning Rs.80,000/- and is residing in Dubai but no documents have been filed by the applicants in support of their version. On perusal of order passed by the learned Family Court on 02/09/2023 the income of the respondent is 30,000/- per month and one child and the parents of the respondent are also dependent upon the income of the respondent. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the income of the respondent, it is directed that the respondent shall pay interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- to applicant No.1 instead of Rs.2500/- and shall pay Rs.2500/- to Applicant No.2 instead of Rs.2000/- total Rs.5500/-. 10. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu