Dismissed

Bandhan Rohidas v. Smt. Rambai

Chhattisgarh HC10 May 2022CRR/314/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh heard a criminal revision filed by an applicant challenging an interim maintenance order. The court held that while the applicant challenged maintenance for his wife, the impugned order only granted maintenance to his minor son. Finding the petition sans substance, the revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed at the motion stage.

Bandhan Rohidas Vs Smt. Rambai — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 314 of 2022

¶5

Bandhan Rohidas S/o Bhawar Rohidas, Aged About 35 Years Occupation Cultivator And Labour, R/o Near Bridge, Dhelwadih, Police Station And Tahsil Katghora, District Korba CG

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Rambai W/o Bandhan Singh, Aged About 30 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Near Bridge, Dhelwadih, Police Station Katghora, At Prsent Resident Of Bastal, Chaitma, Police Chowki- Chaitma, Tahsil Pali, District Korba CG

¶9

Rajesh Rohidas S/o Bandhan Rohidas, Minor, Represented Through Mother Rambai, Resident Of Near Bridge, Dhelwadih, Police Station Katghora, At Present Resident Of Bastal, Chaitma, Police Chowki- Chaitma, Tahsil Pali, District Korba CG

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Adv. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice NK Chandravanshi

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

10-5-2022

¶14

With consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage.

¶15

The applicant has preferred this criminal revision against the order dated 28-2-2022 passed in Case No. 69/2019 by the Judge, Family Court, Link Court, Katghora, Distt. Korba (CG), whereby the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Court, 1973 for grant of interim maintenance has been partly allowed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before learned Family Court, Link Court Katghora, distt. Korba where the case is pending as Case No. 69/2019. It is further submitted that in the reply the applicant has denied that the respondent No. 1 Smt. Rambai is his legally wedded wife. Despite that, the Family Court granted Rs. 2,000/- interim

¶17

¶18

maintenance in her favour, which is not sustainable in law, as their legal marriage is disputed.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that learned Family Court has not granted interim maintenance in favour of respondent No. 1 Smt. Rambai, instead thereof, learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance Rs. 2,000/-, only in favour of the respondent no. 2. Rajesh Rohidas, as applicant himself has admitted in his reply that respondent No. 2 Rajesh Rohidas is his son.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order as well as material available on record.

¶21

Perusal of the impugned order would go to show that applicant Bandhan Rohidas has filed his reply before learned Family Court, in which he has stated that respondent No. 1 Smt. Rambai is not his legally wedded wife, but he has admitted that respondent No. 2 Rajesh Rohidas is his son. Perusal of the impugned order would also go to show that there is some typographical error in the impugned order, but the contents of the order evidently show that since applicant Bandhan Rohidas has denied status of respondent No. 1 Smt. Rambai as his legally wedded wife, therefore, interim maintenance has not been granted in her favour, but interim maintenance has been granted only in favour of respondent No. 2 Rajesh Rohidas to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and grant of interim maintenance in favour of respondent No. 2 is not challenged in this revision, therefore, I do not feel inclined to allow this revision petition, since, as has been stated above, the interim maintenance has not been granted in favour of respondent No. 1. Smt. Rambai.

¶22

In view of above, the revision being sans substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

¶23

Sd/(NK Chandravanshi) JUDGE

¶24

Pathak/-

Bandhan Rohidas v. Smt. Rambai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandhan Rohidas v. Smt. Rambai

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

Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juvenile-a Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas @ Gourav Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Chanchal Verma Vs Chandrakant Verma

Rajesh Kumar Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh