Disposed

Rashmi Agarwal Saraogi v. Amit Saraogi

Gauhati HC5 Mar 2019Crl.Rev.P./22/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a criminal revision regarding an interim domestic Violence order. The Court refused to interfere with the trial court's denial of residence rights but directed the husband to pay an additional monthly maintenance sum for the wife pending the final disposal of the underlying DV case.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to pay an additional interim maintenance of Rs.6500 per month to the petitioner effective March 2019, pending disposal of the underlying DV case. DV case to be disposed within

Rashmi Agarwal Saraogi Vs Amit Saraogi — Domestic Violence | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010008792018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P. 22/2018

¶5

1:RASHMI AGARWAL SARAOGI

¶6

PERMANENT R/O- SARAOGI HOUSE, H.NO-77 A, T.R.PHUKAN ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PAYING GUEST, NARAYAN NAGAR, NEAR GATE NO-9, GUWAHATI

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:AMIT SARAOGI R/O- SARAOGI HOUSE, HOUSE NO-77 A, T.R.PHUKAN ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI, P.S. BHARALUMUKH

¶9

2:SUSHILA DEVI SARAOGI R/O- SARAOGI HOUSE HOUSE NO-77 A T.R.PHUKAN ROAD BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI P.S. BHARALUMUK

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S P ROY

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶13

ORDER

¶14

05.03.2019

¶15

Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the

¶16

petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel representing the

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

respondent No.1 and Mr. S. U. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2.

¶19

This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.IV (FTC), Kamrup(M), Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No.53/2017 filed under Section 29 of the PWDV Act, 2005 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.03.2017 passed by the learned SDJM (1), Kamrup(M), Guwahati in D.V. Case No.129^M /2016.

¶20

The petitioner is the wife of the respondent No.1 and their marriage was solemnized on 07.06.2014 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Kolkata, West Bengal. The respondent No.2 is the mother of the respondent No.1. It appears from the record that a few months after their marriage, a matrimonial disputes broke out between the parties and eventually the petitioner had to approach the learned SDJM (1), Kamrup(M) by filing an application under Section 23 of the PWDV Act, 2005 inter-alia praying for an interim order granting right of residence in her matrimonial shared household.

¶21

The application filed by the petitioner was resisted by the respondent No.1 inter-alia contending that he does not have any share in the matrimonial house inasmuch the respondent No.1 himself is residing in a rented house.

¶22

After taking note of the allegations and counter allegations made by both the parties, the learned SDJM had passed the order dated 16.03.2017 directing the respondent No.1 to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.6000/- to the petitioner while rejecting her prayer for residence in the matrimonial shared household.

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

Aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2017 the petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.53/2017 which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.IV (FTC), Kamrup(M), Guwahati by the impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.2017. Hence, this petition.

¶25

Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that there are as many as six rooms in the matrimonial house of the petitioner and therefore there could be no justifiable ground to deny her the right of residence in at least one of those rooms.

¶26

The aforesaid submission of the petitioner’s counsel has been strongly refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, inter alia contending that the respondent No.1 does not have any authority or right over the earlier household which property stood transferred in the name of respondent No.2 subsequent to his marriage with the petitioner.

¶27

From a perusal of the materials brought on record, it appears that there are serious allegations pertaining to the moral character and integrity lebelled by the petitioner against the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The plea that the respondent No.1 does not have any right over the matrimonial house had also been contested by the petitioner. Needless to say, the correctness of the said plea would depend on factual finding, which would require investigation on the basis of evidence available on record, which exercise cannot be undertaken in the present proceeding.

¶28

It is not in dispute that the D.V. Case No.129^M /2016 is pending disposal before the learned SDJM(1), Kamrup(M), Guwahati but further proceeding have remained suspended since the LCR has been summoned in connection

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

with the present case. As such, it is apparent that the order dated 16.03.2017 is an interim order which was passed by the learned court below on a tentative finding of facts. The relief as prayed for by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Court below. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the interim order dated 16.03.2017. However, keeping in mind the predicament that might be faced by the petitioner being a lady, who would be required to make suitable arrangement of her residence at Guwahati, the respondent No.1 is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.6500/- per month to the petitioner so as to take care of her residential needs at Guwahati.

¶31

The aforesaid amount of Rs.6500/- will be paid by the respondent No.1 over and above the sum of Rs.6000/- granted by the learned trial court as interim maintenance in favour of the petitioner. The amount of Rs.6500/- shall be paid with effect from the month of March, 2019, on month to month basis and

¶32

the amount will be transferred to the petitioner within the 7^th day of each month. The aforesaid arrangement will continue till such time the D.V. Case No.129^M /2016 is finally disposed of by the learned court below. It is provided that the aforesaid arrangement would be purely of temporary nature and shall be subject to the final order that may be passed in the D.V. Case No.129^M /2016.

¶33

The learned trial court is requested to dispose of the D.V. Case No.129^M /2016, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the records, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in this order or any prima facie finding

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

recorded in the order dated 16.03.2017.

¶36

With the above observation, this Revision Petition stands disposed of.

¶37

Registry to send back the LCR.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Rashmi Agarwal Saraogi v. Amit Saraogi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashmi Agarwal Saraogi v. Amit Saraogi

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

Carbon Resources Ptv. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Pcm Cement Concrete Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Ramdia Gosai Para Namghar Samittee Vs Ramdia Hita Sadhini Sabha

Dr. Partha Sarathi Acharjee Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Najiran Nesa @ Najiran Bibi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Abdul Sahid Laskar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.