1 2025:CGHC:7961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 567 of 2025 1 - Veer Kotadiya S/o Sunil Kotadiya Aged About 11 Years (Minor) Priya Kankariya, R/o Kamathi Line Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Sunil Kotadiya S/o Late Shree Jeevanchand Kotadiya Aged About 41 Years R/o Anoop Jewellery, Jewellery (Kotadiya Kamthi Laine Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent : Mrs. Astha Shukla, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 14.02.2025 1. The applicant has filed the present Cr.M.P. for modification of the order dated 23.08.2024 in CRR No. 945 of 2024 wherein the criminal revision was allowed in part by modifying the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) whereby he has reduced the amount of school fees from Rs. 1,15,000/- per Annum to Rs. 85,000/- per Annum to be paid by the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that when applicant mother and respondent have obtained for mutual divorce, the applicant mother has not claimed any permanent alimony or any monetary benefits from the respondent, therefore, she would pray for enhancing BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.02.18 11:13:44 +0530 2 some contribution which is payable by the respondent for tuition fees of their single child. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently objected the submission and would submit that the applicant mother is having good practice as Lawyer at Rajnandgaon and she is capable to maintain her son very well, therefore, this modification of order deserves to be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. From the material placed before this Court and submissions made at bar, it is quite vivid that though both the parties are in good financial position still they are fighting just because of their ego which may adversely influence interest of the child. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the respondent is also having good financial position and applicant mother is also practicing Lawyer at Rajnandgaon and it has also been informed that she has been recently appointed as Public Prosecutor, therefore, I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 85,000/- per annum be enhanced to Rs. 95,000/- per annum which will be in the interest of the child because the paramount consideration of this Court is welfare of the children. 6. Considering this aspect of the matter, the order dated 23.08.2024 is modified and the respondent shall now pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 95,000/- per annum in place of Rs. 85,000/- per annum from the date of passing of this order. 7. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika