Dismissed¶34

Ganesh Mrichande v. Smt. Nileshwari Mrichande

Chhattisgarh HC22 Apr 2024CRR/105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; CR.R. No. 105 of 2024; Justice Parth Prateem Sahu; interim maintenance Rs.8,000 per month; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 Section 12 Section 23(1); Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance Rs.12,300 per month; applicant Constable net salary Rs.50,474; JMFC Mungeli order 04.08.2022; First Additional Sessions Judge Mungeli Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2023 order 07.12.2023; Criminal Revision No.43 of 2021 Sessions Judge Mungeli; disproportion of cumulative maintenance; revision dismissed; expedite pending Magistrate proceedings; Kabirdham; Mungeli.

What did the court decide?

None to the applicant; the revision is dismissed, with a direction to expedite the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate since 2021. ¶34

Ganesh Mrichande Vs Smt. Nileshwari Mrichande — Domestic Violence | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Reserved for Order on : 01.03.2024

¶5

Order Passed on : 23/04/2024

¶6

CR.R. No. 105 of 2024

¶7

1- Ganesh Mrichande Son Of Kapil Das Mrichande, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of New Police Line, Joratal, Tahsil And DistrictKabirdham, C.G.

¶8

---- Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1- Smt. Nileshwari Mrichande Wife Of Ganesh Mrichande, Aged About 31 Years,

¶11

2- Praveen Mrichande Son Of Ganesh Mrichande, Aged About 10 Years,

¶12

3- Bhavesh Mrichande Son Of Ganesh Mrichande Aged About 7 Years,

¶13

Respondent No.2 and 3 are represented Through : Mother Smt. Nileshwari Mrichande,

¶14

All are Resident Of Village- Lilwakanpa, Tahsil And DistrictMungeli, C.G.

¶15

---- Non-applicants

¶16

For Applicant : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate For Non-applicants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶18

C A V ORDER

¶19

Applicant has questioned the legality and sustainability of the impugned order dated 07.12.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2023, whereby learned First Additional Sessions

¶20

¶21

Judge, Mungeli, District – Mungeli affirmed the order dated 04.08.2022 of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.8,000/- in favour of non-applicants/wife in the proceedings filed by them under Section 23 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short ‘the Act of 2005”)

¶22

Learned counsel for applicant submits that non-applicants have filed an application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 and have prayed for maintenance and schooling expenses to the tune of Rs.35,000/- per month, Rs.50,000/- towards medical and harassment and Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical harassment. Along with the application as mentioned above, they have also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance. At the time of arguments on application for grant of interim maintenance, Magistrate was brought to the notice of the fact that in the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., non-applicants are being ordered for maintenance of Rs.12,300/- per month. Even though, maintenance already granted in favour of nonapplicants to the tune of Rs.12,300/- was brought to the notice of learned Magistrate as also the monthly income of applicant to the tune of Rs.34,146/- only and the liability of applicant to maintain his parents, learned Magistrate allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and awarded Rs.8,000/- per month. He contended that learned Magistrate

¶23

¶24

overlooking the fact that upon awarding Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance in the proceedings under the Act of 2005, about 60% of the total income of applicant has been awarded as maintenance to non-applicant, which is erroneous and disproportionate. Learned Family Court have not considered the fact that applicant is having his old aged parents for whom he has to incur medical expenses and make arrangements for their maintenance also. He submits that as the order of interim maintenance if added to the amount of maintenance already granted to non-applicants in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. would disproportionate and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court as also by the Magistrate be interfered with.

¶25

Learned counsel for non-applicants supports the impugned order and would submit that learned Magistrate as also the Appellate Court has already taken note of the award of interim maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter in addition to that Rs.8,000/- is awarded. Hence, it does not call for any interference.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶27

Order dated 27.04.2022 in Criminal Revision No.43 of 2021 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Mungeli is available on record. Perusal of the same would show that the said revision was

¶28

¶29

filed by non-applicant herein against the order dated 01.11.2021, whereby the application for grant of interim maintenance was allowed in part by the revisional Court and awarded Rs.8,300/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- each to non-applicants No.2 and 3 considering that they are studying in school and thereby awarded Rs.12,300/- in total to the non-applicants as interim maintenance. In the said order, learned Sessions Judge have considered the income of the applicant to be Rs.33,243/- per month.

¶30

The Magistrate in the proceeding under the Act of 2005 while considering the application for grant of interim maintenance in its order dated 04.08.2022 though took note of the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.12,300/- already awarded to the non-applicants/wife and also that applicant/husband is posted as Constable having monthly income of Rs.34,146/only and taking note of the fact that children are residing with non-applicant No.1/wife jointly awarded Rs.8,000/- for nonapplicants No.1, 2 and 3.

¶31

Learned both the Courts have considered the source of income of applicant to be salary of Rs.34,146/-. Salary slip of applicant of month of November, 2023 is placed on record showing basic salary of applicant-husband to the tune of Rs.36,200/-, gross salary as Rs.55,118/- and net salary as Rs.50,474/-.

¶32

¶33

Considering the net salary of applicant to Rs.50,474/- and the age of children of applicant to be 10 and 7 years I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court as it being the interim maintenance and the quantum of maintenance is still to be fixed by learned Magistrate at the end of the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act of 2005.

¶34

Accordingly, the criminal revision is without any merit, which is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. However, taking note of the fact that the proceedings before the learned Magistrate is pending since 2021, it is directed to expedite the proceedings.

¶35

Records be sent back forthwith.

¶36

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶37

Balram

Ganesh Mrichande v. Smt. Nileshwari Mrichande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Mrichande v. Smt. Nileshwari Mrichande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xyz (Juvenile Balak) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Monu Kumar @ Shuklu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Kumar Kaiwart Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bindeshwar Agariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh