Dismissed

Yogesh Sahu v. Smt. Gunja Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jan 2022CRR/96/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenging a maintenance order of Rs. 5,000/- per month was dismissed. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the Family Court's order, noting the respondent was the legally wedded wife, no income source was unproven, and despite pending litigation, the award was justified.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition filed under Sections 19(4) of the Family Court Act and 397/401 CrPC is dismissed.

Yogesh Sahu Vs Smt. Gunja Sahu — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Proceedings Through Video Conferencing

¶4

CRR No. 96 of 2022

¶5

Yogesh Sahu, S/o Manharan Sahu, aged about 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Bagbahra Road, Pithaura, Police Station and Tahsil Pithaura, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Gunja Sahu, W/o Yogesh Sahu, aged about 27 Years, D/o Tukaram Sahu, R/o Thakur Dev Chowk, Sarora, Police Station Urla, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant

¶11

Shri P.K. Patel, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya Order on Board

¶13

24/01/2022

¶14

1) Heard on admission.

¶15

1. The instant revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act read with section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.272/2020 whereby respondent has been granted maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶16

1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court below was not justified in granting maintenance to the respondent ignoring the material placed before it. The respondent is living separately from the applicant without any just and reasonable cause and as such she is not entitled for any maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order is

¶17

¶18

liable to be set aside.

¶19

1. Heard.

¶20

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, socioeconomic status of the parties, the allegation and counter allegation between the parties are to be seen in light of the evidence to be adduced by them, proceedings under Section 498A read with 34 of IPC is also pending against the applicant and his family members and social meeting was also convened for resolving the dispute between them but the applicant and his family members did not appear there, the detailed finding given by the Family Court in paras 40 to 51 in the impugned order, the fact that nothing could be produced by the applicant to show the source of income of the respondent, the present day inflation, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order granting maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the respondent.

¶21

1. Accordingly, the revision petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is dismissed as such.

¶22

Sd/(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

¶23

Akhilesh

Yogesh Sahu v. Smt. Gunja Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Sahu v. Smt. Gunja Sahu

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

Gopal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pranjal Kosle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prakash Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raja Prakash Pandwar @ Raja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Maurya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandan Das Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh