The court dismissed the revisional application challenging an interim maintenance order granting Rs. 700 to the wife and Rs. 800 to her daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C., finding no infirmity or juristic error.
Petitioner's application dismissed without costs; interim maintenance order vacated.
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.
06.12.2023 Sl.No. 23 Ct. 32 Amalranjan
CRR 2216 of 2016
Suresh Chandra Maity Vs. Smt. Putul Maity
Nobody appears on behalf of either of the parties on call. Even on earlier occasion, no one represented the petitioner. No accommodation sought for.
This matter is pertains to the year 2016.
The petitioner herein filed this application under Sections 401 /482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved with the order dated 6.6.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldia thereby the learned Magistrate allowed the interim maintenance and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 700 per month to the petitioner wife and Rs. 800/- per month to her daughter as an interim maintenance with effect from the date of the order i.e. 6.6.2016.
Upon perusal of the record including impugned order, it appears that the opposite party is the married wife of the petitioner and it is an admitted fact that she is a married wife. One girl and male child were born from that wedlocking and now opposite party and daughter are residing separately at her parental house due to matrimonial disputes. It is not that the opposite party wife has her own income to maintain herself and to her daughter. Husband has social obligation and liable to maintain his wife as well as the daughter from
2
his income subject to certain conditions. The petitioner stated before the court below that his earning was Rs. 4,000/- per month and the petitioner/wife earned around Rs. 10,000/- per month. Though no documentary proof was produced before the learned court below by the petitioner.
However, the petitioner/husband worked in Indian Oil Corporation and earns Rs. 20,000/- per month. In such a situation, I do not find any infirmity or perversity or jurisdictional error in passing the interim order of maintenance during pendency of an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
In these circumstances, I do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned order under challenged.
Accordingly, the revisional application being CRR 2216 of 2016 is dismissed without order as to costs.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Liberty is granted to all parties to act in terms of the copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this court.
Let the order be communicated to the Ld. Court below for information.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties taking all legal formalities.
( Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. )
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. suffers from any infirmity or perversity warranting interference.
Whether the revisional application under Section 401 Cr.P.C. succeeds.
Whether the interim maintenance order directed during pendency of Section 125 application requires quashing.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Suresh Chandra Maity
Smt. Putul Maity
Ajay Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
