Dismissed

Dayalu Bhaskar v. Smt. Parmeshwari

Chhattisgarh HC14 Nov 2017CRR/862/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a criminal revision against a Family Court maintenance order. The Court held that inquiry under Section 125 Cr.P.C is summary. The maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- was not unreasonable as the applicant earns Rs. 12,000/- including rent, and the award is within prevailing wage limits.

What did the court decide?

The revision is dismissed; the maintenance order of Rs. 4,500/- per month is upheld.

Dayalu Bhaskar Vs Smt. Parmeshwari — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Revision No. 862 of 2017

¶4

(Arising out of judgment/order dated 31.07.2017 in Case No. 354/2016 of the learned 1^st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur District

¶5

Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

Dayalu Bhaskar S/o Samaru Bhaskar, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Birgaon, Itwari Bazaar, Police Station Urla, Tahsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh....(Non-Applicant). ---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Parmeshwari W/o Dayalu Bhaskar, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Baronda, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Kumari Saraswati D/o Dayalu Bhaskar, Aged About 12 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Parmeshwari, Aged About 31 Years, W/o Dayalu Bhaskar, R/o Village Baronda, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh...................... ---- Respondents

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. K.K. Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Raja Ali, Advocate

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

14.11.2017

¶14

1 ) Heard on admission.

¶15

1. This revision is directed against order dated 31.07.2017 passed by 1^st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur in M.J.C. No. 354/2016, wherein the said Court granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the nonapplicant No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 and in all granted Rs. 4,500/- per month.

¶16

¶17

1. Counsel for the applicant/revisioner submits that the applicant is earning Rs. 4500/- per month and the order of the family court is disproportionate to the income of the applicant/revisioner.

¶18

1. On the other hand, counsel for the non-applicants submits that the applicant earning Rs. 12,000/- working with one Niwar Company and again he is getting Rs. 8,000/- per month as he has given premises on rent.

¶19

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

1. Relation between the parties is admitted. It has come on evidence that the applicant assaulted his wife and harassed her many times that is why she is living separately. There is good reason for her to live separately. The applicant has not filed any application before any competent Court for restitution of conjugal rights that shows his neglect towards the wife. Inquiry under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is summary inquiry and the Court cannot decide as to which party was wrong for not living together. The minimum wages is prevailing Rs. 300/per day which comes to Rs. 9,000/- per month. The family Court granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,500/- per month to the wife and daughter that cannot be termed as unreasonable or disproportionate. No issues is involved to interfere with the order of maintenance passed by the Family

¶21

¶22

Court and the same is not liable to be interfered with invoking the jurisdiction of revision by this Court.

¶23

1. For the foregoing, the revision is devoid of substance and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. In view of above, I.A. No. 1/2017, application for grant of stay is disposed of.

¶24

Sd/(Ram Prasanna Sharma) JUDGE

¶25

santosh

Dayalu Bhaskar v. Smt. Parmeshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayalu Bhaskar v. Smt. Parmeshwari

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

Neel Kamal Rajar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajeet Kumar Gautam Vs Smt. Neetu Gautam

Surendra Raj Vs Devkunwar

Madhurima Shukla Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ram Lal Kariyare Vs Smt. Ghasin Bai Kariyare and Oth.

Pankaj Majithia Vs Smt. Charusheela