Petitioner challenged a maintenance enhancement order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.ر The Court held that Section 362 Cr.P.C. bars re-appreciation of evidence for clerical errors, and inherent powers under Section 482 cannot override this express bar. Petition dismissed.
Petition dismissed and disposed of; no order passed as prayed.
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.
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CR.M.P. No. 750 of 2021
Shilpi Shrivastava, W/o. Varun Gopal, agad about 34 years, R/o. Om Niwas, Jora Talab, Behind Manorama Dairy, Jora Para, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
Varun Gopal, S/o. Sh. Manmohan Gopal, aged about 33 years, R/o. 108, Louis Road, Forest Field Western, Australia - 6058 Indian Address - WZ-294/9, G- Block Hari Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi - 110058
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Shreyankar Nandy, Advocate along with petitioner in person.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order On Board
20/10/2021
Page 2 of 3
regarding which proper appreciation has not been made in the earlier order and also the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, reported in AIR 2021 SC 569 has not been followed. Another prayer made in the present petition is regarding grant of maintenance from the date of filing of the application, whereas, this Court and the Family Court both have ordered granting maintenance from the date of order passed by the Family Court.
Page 3 of 3
under Section 362 of the Code of 1973. Hence, in view of the above legal pronouncement and the law settled no order can be passed in this petition as prayed.
Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge
Balram
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to re-appreciate evidence regarding quantum of maintenance when Section 362 Cr.P.C. bars alteration of final or
Whether Section 362 of Cr.P.C. acts as an express bar preventing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 to modify a final maintenance order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajnesh Vs. NehaReferred¶18
Rajnesh Vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569 · Who else cites this
Mostt. Simrikhia vs Smt. Dolley MukherjeeFollowed¶21
Mostt. Simrikhia vs Smt. Dolley Mukherjee, AIR 1990 SC 1605 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Shilpi Shrivastava
Varun Gopal
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
