Allowed

Dr.Pranay Verma v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC19 Jul 2016Cr.Rev./697/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court ordered an interlocutory application in a criminal revision wherein the petitioner got a maintenance set aside through a compromise. The applicant claimed to settle all prior disputes against the wife and children via a mutual consent divorce decree passed by the Family Court Bilaspur. The wife accepted the fact agreed by the compromise. The court allowed the interlocutory application

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.07.2007 in Cr. Misc. Case No. 67 of 2005 for maintenance set aside and Criminal Revision No. 697 of 2007 also allowed.

Dr.Pranay Verma Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 697 of 2007

¶2

Dr. Pranay Verma son of Shri Prem Prakash Verma resident of Near Pahari, NC Qr. No. 137, Officers Colony, PS Chachai, District Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh)

¶3

… … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.State of Jharkhand 2.Rupam Rimpi Verma W/o Dr. Pranay Verma D/o Late Keshav Prasad Sinha R/o LIC Colony (Nahar Park), PS Dumka Town District Dumka 3.Mayank Son of Dr. Pranay Verma represented through his mother Rupam Rimpi Verma … Opposite Parties

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. M. B. Lal, Advocate For the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Navneeet Sahay, Advocate

¶8

9/19.07.2016 I. A. No. 2588 of 2016:

¶9

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for disposing of Criminal Revision No. 697 of 2007 in view of the subsequent event which had taken place between the petitioner and the opposite party nos. 2 & 3.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a compromise was effected between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh wherein on the basis of such compromise, a decree was prepared. It has been submitted that both the parties have agreed to settle all the matters which have been instituted for and against them and in fact pursuant to the divorce obtained by mutual consent, an amount of Rs. 5,70,000/- as agreed upon as already been paid to the opposite party no. 2. It has therefore been submitted that in view of the compromise, the maintenance case should be dropped.

¶11

Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 has accepted the factum of compromise and stated that he does not have any objection, if the impugned order dated 10.07.2007 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Cr. Misc. Case No. 67 of 2005 be set aside.

¶12

-2-

¶13

It appears that before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh, a compromise was effected between both the sides which also included the pending cases which are existing against each other. Based on the compromise so effected, a decree for mutual divorce has already been passed. As has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and agreed by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, the order passed in maintenance case which is under challenge in the present application which also forms the subject matter of the challenge in the instant interlocutory application be set aside.

¶14

It further appears that an amount of Rs. 5,70,000/- as has been agreed upon at the time of the compromise has been paid by the petitioner to the opposite party no. 2.

¶15

In view of the circumstances enumerated above pursuant to the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and which includes within its periphery criminal miscellaneous case no. 67 of 2005, the impugned order dated 10.07.2007 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Cr. Misc. Case No. 67 of 2005 by which a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month along with Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost awarded to the opposite parties is set aside.

¶16

This interlocutory application stands allowed.

¶17

Cr. Revision No. 697 of 2007:

¶18

In view of the order passed in the I. A. No. 2588 of 2016,

¶19

Criminal Revision No. 697 of 2007 also stands allowed.

¶20

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶21

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Dr.Pranay Verma v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Pranay Verma v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanika Banerjee Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kunal Alias Kunal Kumar Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Gupta through His Father Upendra Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Jhunjhunwala Vs The State Of Jhakrhand And Ors.

Mahendra Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

MD Khursid Alam and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.