Allowed

Birendra Kumar Verma v. Smt. Neetu Verma

Chhattisgarh HC7 Nov 2022CRR/236/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision challenging a family court's ex parte order granting interim maintenance, the High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the order because the applicant was not given a hearing. Finding the applicant willing to pay maintenance and cohabit, the court remanded the matter for a full hearing and directed the payment of Rs. 4,000/- as interim maintenance pending final disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; matter remanded to Family Court with direction to allow hearing; interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- granted pending final adjudication.

Birendra Kumar Verma Vs Smt. Neetu Verma — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.236 of 2021

¶4

Birendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Narayan Verma Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Sarwadih, Post Bagbuda, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda BazarBhatapara, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Neetu Verma W/o Shri Birendra Kumar Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Sarwadih, Post Bagbuda, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda BazarBhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶8

Minor Ku. Bhagyalaxmi Verma D/o Shri Birendra Kumar Verma Aged About 1 Years Through Guardian Mother Smt. Neetu Verma W/o Shri Birendra Kumar Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Sarwadih, Post Bagbuda, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh At Present C/o Neetu Verma D/o Shri Nanakram Verma R/o Village Kari, Post Kohraud, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶9

----Non-Applicants

¶10

For Applicant: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State: Shri Jitendra Shukla, Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

07.11.2022

¶14

By way of this Revision, the Applicant has challenged the judgment dated 03.12.2020 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Baloda Bazaar in Misc. Criminal Case No.211/2019 whereby, maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to Respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to Respondent No.2 has been granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that no opportunity was granted to the Applicant to file reply to the application for grant of interim maintenance amount. He further submits that on 14.01.2020, time was granted to file reply for the original application as well as for interim maintenance application and the case was fixed on 29.01.2020 on which date, the Applicant could not appear and the case was proceeded ex parte, therefore, the impugned

¶16

¶17

order has been passed, which is bad in law. He further submits that on account of lock-down due to Corona Virus, the Applicant could not appear before the Court and on instructions, he submits that the Applicant is still willing to keep his wife along with him and is also ready to pay the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,000/- i.e. Rs.2,000/- to Non-Applicant No.1-wife and Rs.2,000/- to NonApplicant No.2-daughter and is also ready to clear the arrears within a period of two months and prays that the same may be calculated from the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. 03.12.2020. He further prays that the matter be remanded to the Family Court with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant, granting him time to file reply as also to cross-examine the Non-Applicants.

¶18

On the other hand, Shri Jitendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the NonApplicants opposes the Revision and submits that sufficient opportunity has been given to the Applicant but he has deliberately not appeared before the concerned Court, therefore, learned Family Court has rightly dealt with the issue involved therein for which, no interference is required.

¶19

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with utmost circumspection.

¶20

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the Applicant that he is still willing to keep his wife and child along with him and is also ready to pay the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,000/- i.e. Rs.2,000/- each to both the Non-Applicants from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 03.12.2020 and is also ready to clear the arrears within two months, this Court is of the view that the Applicant should be given an opportunity to contest his case on merits.

¶21

¶22

Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and it is directed that interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- i.e. Rs.2,000/- each to both the Non-Applicants be paid till the final adjudication of the Revision. Arrears be realized and the amount already deposited be also adjusted in accordance with law.

¶23

With the aforesaid observation, the Revision stands disposed of.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶26

Priya

Birendra Kumar Verma v. Smt. Neetu Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Kumar Verma v. Smt. Neetu Verma

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

Rajkumar Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shubham Damor Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Habib Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K. J. S. L. Coal and Power Ltd. Vs Abhijeet M. a. D. C. Nagpur Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Anusuiya Bai Vs Prem Prakash Bhuarya

Mukhram Singh Vs Budhnath Singh