Allowed

Khikh Bai v. Uttam Das

Chhattisgarh HC20 Nov 2017CRR/1095/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh reversed the Family Court's dismissal of a second maintenance application. The single judge held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. allows day-to-day cause of action, res judicata does not apply, and the revisioner could claim maintenance from the date of the new application.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Family Court was reversed; it was directed to proceed with the Section 125 application and dispose it according to law.

Khikh Bai Vs Uttam Das — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

( Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma)

¶5

CRR No.1095 of 2016

¶6

Khikh Bai W/o Uttam Das Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bhikhpali, Police Station & Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Revisioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Uttam Das S/o Brijlal Aged About 27 Years Caste- Panka, R/o Village Navagarh, Police Station & Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For revisioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For respondent Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate.

¶12

Order on board.

¶13

20-11-2017

¶14

The matter is heard finally.

¶15

This revision is preferred against the order dated 5-10-2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, camp at Saraipali, District Mahasamund wherein the said Court dismissed the application filed by the revisioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and opined that second application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., cannot be filed.

¶16

The revisoner herein filed an application for maintenance against the non-revisioner who is her husband on 5-1-2011 and the same was dismissed on 9-5-2014 for want of prosecution and the matter was not decided and restoration of the said application was also not

¶17

¶18

allowed. On 15-3-2016 the revisioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which was treated as second application by the said Court and dismissed the same on the ground that filing of second application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., is not maintainable.

¶19

In view of this Court, there is no bar under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., for filing second application. Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is filed for day to day maintenance and cause of action arose day to day. As per provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, court can grant maintenance from the date of the order or if so can order from the date of application for maintenance. In the present case, earlier proceeding was terminated on 9-5-2014. Now present application was filed on 15-3-2016 and the present revisioner is not claiming for maintenance before 15-3-2016. The Court can order maintenance from the date of order or from the date of application of maintenance.

¶20

In the present case, the court will not pass any order regading maintenance of previous months of the date of application. Earlier application was not decided on merit and it is not a case where any principle of res judicata will apply. It is a settled principle of law that principle of res judicata is not applicable to proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. When no amount is granted for maintenance upto now, it cannot be said that the second application is not maintainable. The order of the said Family Court is not sustainable and the same is reversed.

¶21

¶22

The Family Court is directed to proceed with the application filed by the revisioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C and dispose of it according to law as early as possible.

¶23

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant revision

¶24

stands disposed of.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Ram Prasanna Sharma) Judge

¶27

Raju

Khikh Bai v. Uttam Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khikh Bai v. Uttam Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhash Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pushpendra Vishwakarma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Priya Nirmalkar Vs Gaurishankar Nirmalkar

Smt. Sunita Saluja Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vikram Nath Vs State Of Chhattisgarh