Single Judge dismissed an interim order granting interim maintenance to the wife and minor son of the applicant in a family court matter, finding no merit in the revision and directing the lower court to decide the merits.
Revision dismissed in limine. Family Court directed to decide the matter as early as possible.
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.584 of 2018
Satish Mathur, S/o Purushottam Mathur, aged about 24 years, R/o Near Health Center, Station Para, Bajrang Chowk Kotmi Sonar, Post Kotmi Sonar, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
versus
1. Ashma Bai, W/o Satish Mathur, aged about 22 years,
2. Ashad @ Lalla, S/o Satish Mathur, aged about 1 year, minor through his natural guardian mother, namely, Ashma Bai, W/o Satish Mathur, aged about 22 years,
Both are R/o through Late Madhoram Satnami, Village Sendari, Post Sendari, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Applicant : Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order on Board
18.6.2018
1. Heard on admission.
2. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 24.4.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in M.J.C. No.200 of 2018, whereby the Family Court has allowed the application of the Respondents for grant of interim maintenance and granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- in favour of Respondent No.1/wife of the Applicant and that of Rs.800/- in favour of Respondent No.2/son of the Applicant.
3. Shri Govind Dewangan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has always been ready and willing to keep the Respondents/wife and son with him, but the wife is not residing with him without any sufficient cause. Therefore, the
2
Respondents are not entitled for grant of any interim maintenance.
4. Admittedly, Respondent No.1 is the wife of the Applicant and Respondent No.2 is the son of the Applicant and they are residing separately from the Applicant. Respondent No.1/wife is residing separately from the Applicant without any sufficient cause or not is a matter of evidence. Since both the Respondents are wife and son of the Applicant and they are residing separately from him, the Family Court has rightly granted the interim maintenance in their favour.
5. Thus, I find no merit in the instant revision. The revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine. However, the Family Court is directed to decide the matter as early as possible.
Sd/( Arvind Singh Chandel ) Judge
Gopal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant is entitled to set aside the grant of interim maintenance to his wife and minor son.
Whether the wife's separate residence amounts to sufficient cause disentitling her to maintenance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satish Mathur
Ashma Bai
Ashad @ Lalla
Arvind Singh Chandel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
