Writ petitioner challenged interim maintenance order under section 29 of Domestic Violence Act. Court found no illegality as amount was neither excessive nor disproportionate. Petition dismissed.
The writ petition under Article 227 seeking quashing of the impugned orders was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3160 of 2018
Petitioner :- Bhola Nath Pandey Respondent :- Sadhana Pandey Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Asthana
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Asthana, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashish Pandey,learned A.G.A. for the State.
The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with the prayer to quash the order dated 19.3.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge ,Court No.2,Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2017 under section 29 of Domestic Violence Act and the order dated 3.3.2017 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi in Case No. 105 of 2016 under section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month to the wife.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a man of limited means and is keeping a bad health and hence he could not pay the interim maintenance fixed by the learned court below.
Learned A.G.A.opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned orders as the same do not suffer from any illegality.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out anything illegal or improper on the basis of which the impugned order may be quashed. By the impugned order, only an interim maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month for the respondent-wife has been fixed. This amount is neither excessive nor disproportionate. It is also not the final adjudication regarding the amount of maintenance which will be done after the proceedings are over.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties,I am of the opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor it can be said to be abuse of the process of Court, no interference is called for by this Court in the present application under Article 227.
The present petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 4.5.2018 Su
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance order under the Domestic Violence Act suffers from any illegality warranting interference under Article 227.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhola Nath Pandey
Sadhana Pandey
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
