Dismissed

Akbar Ali v. Smt. Sana Parveen

Chhattisgarh HC2 Nov 2017CRR/900/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging maintenance and protection orders under the DV Act. The court held the Rs.3,000/- monthly maintenance was reasonable given the petitioner's earning capacity and dismissed the staying application.

What did the court decide?

The revision, along with the application for staying the operation of the impugned orders, was dismissed.

Akbar Ali Vs Smt. Sana Parveen — Domestic Violence | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.900 of 2017

¶4

Akbar Ali S/o Hussain Ali, Aged About 26 Years R/o Rambag, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Revisioner/Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Smt. Sana Parveen W/o Akbar Ali, Aged About 23 Years R/o Lattipara, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2. Rasida Begum W/o Hussain Ali, Aged About 60 Years R/o Vegetable Market, Rambag, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3. Firoz Khan S/o Sikander Khan, Aged About 47 Years R/o Vegetable Market, Rambag, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4. Sultana Begum W/o Firoz Khan, Aged About 43 Years R/o Vegetable Market, Rambag, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Non Revisioners/Respondents

¶12

For Revisioner/applicant	: Shri DN Prajapati, Advocate
For respondent	: Not noticed.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

02.11.2017

¶16

This revision is directed against order dated 18.9.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.04/2017 affirming the order dated 19.6.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Bastar, Kanker wherein the Magistrate granted maintenance to non-revisioner No.1 – wife an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month as per Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and again passed Protection orders under Section 18 of the Act for committing any domestic violence.

¶17

¶18

2 . Order of the Magistrate reveals that the revisioner made allegation against the non revisioner No.1 regarding her relation with some boy at Hyderabad, but was not able to substantiate the same before the trial Court and the trial Court opined that charging with character of non-revisioner No.1 comes under the purview of domestic violence and thereafter assessed the income of the revisioner as Rs.10,000/- per month and granted maintenance to the wife. It is admitted during argument that non revisioner No.1 is living separately and looking to the material placed before the Magistrate, the order is well founded as per factual matrix and legal aspects of the matter.

¶19

3 . Minimum wages prevailing is Rs.300/- per day and it comes to Rs.9,000/- per month and any person capable to earn can earn his income equivalent to minimum wages. So it cannot be inferred that the revisioner is not able to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to his wife and the order passed by the trial Court and affirmed by Additional Sessions Judge is reasonable or proportionate to the income of the revisioner. No substantial legal issue is involved in the revision warranting interference by this Court to the orders passed by the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge. Again provision for protection to the wife is also in consonance with Section 18 of the Act and the same is also not liable to be interferred with. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Consequently, IA No.01/17 for staying the effect and operation of the order passed

¶20

¶21

by the Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge is also hereby dismissed.

¶22

Sd/(Ram Prasanna Sharma)

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Bini

Akbar Ali v. Smt. Sana Parveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akbar Ali v. Smt. Sana Parveen

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

Babulal @ Babuji Vs State

Ram Lal @ Rama Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Devi Prasad Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Umashankar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Totaram and Ors. Vs the State of M.P. Now C.G.

Surendra Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of M.P.