The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order awarding Rs. 600 per month as monthly maintenance to the respondent wife. The Court held the amount was reasonable and the Family Court correctly awarded maintenance.
Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2007 dismissed; Family Court order upholding.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2007
Omprakash Sonkar, S/o Ashok Sonkar, Aged about 22 years, R/o Village; Khudmuda, Tehsil: Patan, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Surekha Bai, W/o Omprakash Sonkar, Aged about 19 years, R/o Village: Khudmuda, Tehsil:Patan, Distrct:Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : None present
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
14/08/2015
1. By the impugned order dated 20.12.2006, the Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in M.J.C.No.13/2005 has directed for payment of Rs.600/- per month as maintenance to the respondent, which is sought to be challenged in this criminal revision.
2. Finding relationship between husband and wife is established and further finding that the respondent is unable to maintain herself and the petitioner is sufficient means to pay the maintenance to her is also established, the Family Court passed an order granting maintenance.
3. Taking into considering the specific finding recorded by the Family Court that relationship between husband and wife is established and the respondent is having sufficient reason to live separately and the petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain her.
2
4. The Family Court has rightly awarded the maintenance to the extent of Rs.600/- per month to the respondent.
5. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction in the said finding recorded by the Family Court as amount awarded is reasonable.
6. The criminal revision deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE
B/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's order awarding Rs. 600 per month as maintenance is unsustainable in law.
Whether sufficient reason for separation and sufficient means of the petitioner are established to justify maintenance.
Whether the impugned order of the Family Court warrants interference in criminal revision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Omprakash Sonkar
Surekha Bai
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
