Harjeet Kaur vs Rinku @ Balvinder Singh Bhatia
2021 Latest Caselaw 846 Chatt

                                                                  NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        FA(MAT) No. 18 of 2021
      Harjeet Kaur W/o Rinku @ Balvinder Singh Bhatia, Aged About
       34 Years R/o Quarter No. L - 121, Yadunandan Nagar, Bilaspur,
       Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
       Chhattisgarh.
                                                          ---- Appellant.
                                 Versus
      Rinku @ Balvinder Singh Bhatia S/o Late Harbansh Singh
       Bhatia, Aged About 36 Years R/o Transport Nagar, Korba, District
       - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.
                                                       ---- Respondent.


For the Appellant :-        Mr. Shahid Ahmed Ansari, Adv.
For the respondent :-       None.


       Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
          Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor,

     Order on Board by Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

05.07.2021 Heard.

2. This appeal has been filed after a delay of more than six and a

half years, aggrieved by decree of divorce dated 04.07.2013 passed by

the Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.13-A/2013 on the basis of

mutual consent between the parties.

The decree was passed by the Family Court on the basis of

mutual consent of the parties. The appellant has sought to challenge

the order passed long back seeking a decree for payment of permanent

alimony to the tune of Rs.30 Lacs in her favour. This is not an appeal

on behalf of the child. The cause shown for condonation of delay is that

the meager amount of Rs.1.15 Lacs awarded for specific purpose of

maintenance of the child Ku. Gungun @ Spreet Kaur, is not sufficient

for the daughter.

3. We find that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was earlier

filed which has been allowed in favour of the child Gungun @ Spreet

Kaur vide order dated 12.04.2018 by which the Family Court has

awarded Rs.9000/- per month for the child.

4. The cause shown for delay in filling the appeal is factually

incorrect and in the garb of interest of the child the mother seeks to

raise the amount of alimony awarded to her under the impugned

judgment which is based on mutual consent between the parties.

5. For the above reason, there is no sufficient cause shown for

condoning the delay. In the result, application for condonation of delay

is rejected and the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.

Before parting with the case, we must make it clear that this was

an appeal filed by the appellant who is the divorced wife of respondent

and this order shall not come in the way of child Gungun @ Spreet

Kaur in seeking enforcement of her rights, as are available to her under

the law.

                   Sd/-                                           Sd/-
       (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                       (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
                   Judge                                         Judge
Ajay