Chattisgarh High Court
Suresh Tiwari vs Sadhna Tiwari on 9 September, 2021
1
FAM No.91 of 2016
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on 05-04-2021
Judgment delivered on 09-09-2021
FAM No. 91 of 2016
[Arising out of judgment and decree dated 25-2-2016 passed by the
Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, in civil suit No.143-A/2013]
1. Suresh Tiwari S/o Shri Salikram Tiwari, Aged About 52 Years R/o
Radha Krishna Ward, Kawardha, Police Station, Tahsil And
District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, Civil And Revenue District
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Sadhna Tiwari D/o Late Sanat Kumar Mishra, Aged About 49
Years
2. Shaifali Alias Pragati Tiwari Aged About 18 Years
Both R/o Brahmanpara, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Appellant Shri Sandeep Shrivastava and Shri Akash
Agrawal, Advocates
For Respondents Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. CJ.
Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi, J.
CAV Judgment
The following judgment of the Court is delivered by Prashant
Kumar Mishra, Acting Chief Justice.
1. In this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the
appellant-Suresh Tiwari has called in question the order passed by
FAM No.91 of 2016
the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, deciding the respondents'
application under Section 25 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(for brevity 'the Act, 1955') enhancing the maintenance amount
from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,700/- per month for respondent No.1-
Sadhna Tiwari and from Rs.250/- to Rs.750/- per month in respect
of respondent No.2-Shaifali @ Pragati Tiwari.
2. There is no dispute between the appellant and the respondent No.1
that their marriage solemnised in the year 1991 has been dissolved
by compromise entered before the Lok Adalat on 3-3-2002. While
passing the compromise decree, the appellant agreed to pay
Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.250/- per month
to each of their children namely; Sourabh and Shaifali (Manisha)
till they attain the age of majority. The appellant also agreed to
make fixed deposit of Rs.50,000/- in the name of his daughter
Shaifali (Manisha) for the expenditure in her marriage. The
respondent No.1 agreed to withdraw the proceedings under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and shall facilitate closure of the
criminal case for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.
3. When the matter stood compromise in the above stated terms on
3-3-2002 the respondents preferred the subject application under
Section 25(2) of the Act, 1955 seeking enhancement of the
amount of maintenance and the same has been allowed by the
Family Court.
4. Shri Sandeep Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, would
refer to the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Punjab and Another v Jalour Singh and Others 1, Bar
Council of India v Union of India2 and Bhargavi Constructions
and Another v Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others3 to argue
that the award passed by the Lok Adalat being final and not
appealable it was not open for the respondents to have moved the
1 (2008) 2 SCC 660
2 (2012) 8 SCC 243
3 (2018) 13 SCC 480
FAM No.91 of 2016
application under Section 25(2) of the Act, 1955 nor was it open
for the Family Court to have modified the award passed by the
Lok Adalat.
5. Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, per contra, would submit that the respondents have
not called in question the award passed by the Lok Adalat,
therefore, the application moved by the respondents under Section
25 (2) of the Act, 1955 is maintainable.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhargavi
Constructions (supra), has held that an award made by the Lok
Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties is
final and binding on the parties to the settlement. Any challenge
to such an award based on settlement can be done only by filing a
petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, that too on very limited grounds.
7. Section 25 of the Act, 1955 makes a provision regarding
permanent alimony and maintenance. The same is reproduced
hereunder for ready reference :
25 Permanent alimony and maintenance.--
(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under
this Act may, at the time of passing any decree
or at any time subsequent thereto, on
application made to it for the purpose by
either the wife or the husband, as the case
may be, order that the respondent shall pay to
the applicant for her or his maintenance and
support such gross sum or such monthly or
periodical sum for a term not exceeding the
life of the applicant as, having regard to the
respondent's own income and other property,
if any, the income and other property of the
applicant, the conduct of the parties and other
circumstances of the case, it may seem to the
court to be just, and any such payment may be
secured, if necessary, by a charge on the
immovable property of the respondent.
FAM No.91 of 2016
(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a
change in the circumstances of either party at
any time after it has made an order under sub-
section (1), it may at the instance of either
party, vary, modify or rescind any such
order in such manner as the court may deem
just.
(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in
whose favour an order has been made under
this section has re-married or, if such party is
the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or,
if such party is the husband, that he has had
sexual intercourse with any woman outside
wedlock, it may at the instance of the other
party vary, modify or rescind any such
order in such manner as the court may deem
just.
8. The above quoted provision contained in Section 25 itself
provides that power under Section 25(1) is to be exercised by the
Court at the first instance and when there is a change in the
circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order
under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary,
modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may
deem just.
9. The award passed by the Lok Adalat, while deciding the quantum
of monthly maintenance payable by the appellant to the
respondents was in exercise of power under Section 25(1),
therefore, since the amount of maintenance is controlled by the
provision under sub-section (2) it entitles the wife to apply for
modification/enhancement of the amount. While making such
application the wife or the children have not challenged the award,
therefore, the present is not a case where the application would be
barred in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matter of Bhargavi Constructions (supra).
10. When the law itself entitles a party to take appropriate steps in the
changed circumstances, exercise of such entitlement would not be
FAM No.91 of 2016
negated only for the reason that under Section 25 of the Act, 1955
the award was passed by the Lok Adalat.
11. Since focus of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant revolved around question dealt with in the preceding
paragraphs, we have not considered the merits of the decision of
fixation of monthly maintenance amount in favour of both the
respondents i.e. Rs.1700/- and Rs.750/-, respectively. However,
even if that is examined on merits, considering the current price
index the same is not on higher side.
12. In the result, the present appeal, being bereft of merit, is liable to
be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own
cost(s).
13. A decree be drawn accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Prashant Kumar Mishra) (N.K. Chandravanshi)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
Gowri
HEAD NOTE
Maintenance u/S 25 of HM Act fixed by the Lok Adalat. It can be
varied, modified or rescind by the Family Court u/S 25 (2) and the same
would not amount to challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat.
