Dismissed

Munish Motilal Pariyani v. Ritisha Munish Bariyani @ Inky Gurbani

Gauhati HC22 Oct 2019Crl.Rev.P./261/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal against an order granting interim maintenance of Rs.9,000 per month to the wife and minor child, holding that no revision lies against an interlocutory order and that the petitioner could seek modification.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; interim maintenance order stands unaltered.

Munish Motilal Pariyani Vs Ritisha Munish Bariyani @… — Maintenance and Alimony | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010160192018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P. 261/2018

¶6

MUNISH MOTILAL PARIYANI

¶7

S/O- SRI MOTILAL J PARIYANI, R/O- 501, SKY HIGH TOWER, 5TH FLOOR, SHANKAR LANE, OFF TANK ROAD, ORLEM, MALAD(WEST), P.OMUMBAI, MUMBAI- 400064, MAHARASHTRA

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:RITISHA MUNISH BARIYANI @ INKY GURBANI W/O- SRI MUNISH MOTILAL PARIYANI, R/O- 1 TAG PLAZA, FLAT NO. 4D, TARUN NAGAR, MAIN LANE, ABC, GUWAHATI- 781005, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BORTHAKUR

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R DUBEY

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶13

ORDER

¶14

22-10-2019

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State

¶16

respondent.

¶17

By filing this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC petitioner who is a respondent in the FC (Crl) Case No. 562/2017 has challenged the order of granting interim maintenance passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court by order dated 22.05.2018.

¶18

By the said order learned Court had granted interim maintenance to the petitioner (now respondent) and her minor child at the rate of Rs.5000/- and Rs.4000/- per

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

month totalling Rs. 9000/- per month.

¶21

I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is out of income and has no capacity to pay as such to his wife.

¶23

In support of the contention, the petitioner has pressed into service Annexure-2 to show that the petitioner has already resigned from his service.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent has however contended that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court.

¶25

I have gone through the submissions and also perused the documents so annexed in support of the contention that has been raised before this Court in the context.

¶26

I have also gone through the written statement the petitioner so filed before the trial Court. It is to be noted that in his written statement filed on 25.01.2018 the petitioner has contended that he had been working in a private organization M/s Pure Gold Jewellers and Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai at a monthly salary of Rs.36,207/-. From this amount he has to maintain his family. Through the resignation letter dated 16.06.2017 he intended to show that he has resigned from the said job. Such a document cannot be accepted as the same was not mentioned in his written statement which was filed after several months of such so called resignation. In his written statement he has admitted about his working in the said private organization and about his monthly income. That being so it can be assumed that only to deny the claim, of his wife that he has come with the document (letter of resignation).

¶27

On the other hand also the learned trial Court has passed the order on the basis of the documents and pleadings between the parties and has taken note of all above.

¶28

Over and above, the impugned order is an interlocutory order in the sense that it has simply granted interim maintenance and has not finally decided the case on merit. The petitioner is in a position to pray for alteration and modification of the order subject to change of the circumstances. No such revision lies under Section 397(2) against any interlocutory order passed by the Court in course of trial/enquiry etc.

¶29

From the discussion made above, there is no merit in the present petition and same is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Munish Motilal Pariyani v. Ritisha Munish Bariyani @ Inky Gurbani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munish Motilal Pariyani v. Ritisha Munish Bariyani @ Inky Gurbani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Angsuman Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sri Son Sing Teron Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

M/S Gupta Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Paresh Dutta Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Ujjal Konwar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Baneswar Subedar and 3 Ors. Vs Smt. Monima Saikia and Anr.