Single judge dismissed the revisional application challenging an order granting Rs.3,000/- monthly maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The court held no illegality existed as the marriage was undisputed and the amount was reasonable based on the petitioner's income.
Revisional application CRR 3157 of 2018 is 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.
21.04.2022 Sl. No.27. S.D.
C.R.R. 3157 of 2018
In the matter of : Malay Roy
…Petitioner.
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Biswas Mr. Suprobhat Bhattacharya … For the Petitioner. Mr. Amajit De
…For the O.P.
The petitioner challenged an order dated January 18, 2018, whereby the learned Magistrate granted Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be paid by the petitioner to opposite party no.1.
The learned Magistrate has found that petitioner is a school teacher and he earns about Rs.30,000/- per month as his salary.
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner challenges the said order on the sole ground that opposite party no.1 is not legally married wife of the petitioner.
He relied upon a judgment reported at (2005) Cri. L.J. 2141 ( Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat ) .
The learned Magistrate recorded that though in the written objection that point was taken, at the time of hearing
2
the same was not pressed. The learned Magistrate also recorded that in spite of granting opportunity, the petitioner declined to cross-examine opposite party no.1. The learned Magistrate accordingly proceeded on the basis that opposite party no.1 was the legally married wife of the petitioner.
Since the petitioner, before the learned Magistrate, did not deny the marriage, I am not inclined to allow the petitioner to urge the same in this revisional application.
I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate in granting Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance of opposite party no.1. In my view, the said amount of maintenance is just and reasonable particularly when the petitioner’s income is in excess of Rs.30,000/- per month.
The judgment cited at the Bar does not help the petitioner since the marriage in this case was not in dispute.
No interference is called for.
Accordingly, the revisional application CRR 3157 of 2018
is dismissed.
( Kausik Chanda, J. )
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court should interfere with the maintenance order when the petitioner failed to deny the marriage before the Magistrate.
Whether the maintenance amount granted is reasonable given the petitioner's income of Rs.30,000/- per month.
Whether the cited precedent Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya aids the petitioner as the marriage was not in dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of GujaratDistinguished¶16
(2005) Cri. L.J. 2141 (Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Malay Roy
Opposite Party No. 1
Kausik Chanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
