High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/1429/2016dismissed

Manish Dubey v. Smt. Mamta Dubey

2019-01-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1429 of 2016

1. Manish Dubey S/o Anil Dubey, Aged About 33 Years

2. Anil Dubey, S/o Shri Mukhram Dubey, ( Wrongly Mentioned Mukhraj Dubey In The Impugned Order ) Aged About 58 Years

3. Mukhram Dubey, S/o Lt. Samjit Dubey, Aged About 80 Years All are R/o Shikari Road Bouripara Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Smt. Mamta Dubey D/o Dawarika Choubey, W/o Manish Dubey Wrongly Mentioned Choubey In The Impugned Order

2. Piyush Kumar, S/o Manish Dubey, Aged About 10 Years Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Mamta Dubey, Both are R/o Khopa Mahuwa Jail Road Ramanujganj District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents :

Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 10/01/2019

1. Heard.

2. The present petition is against the order dated 17th of November, 2016 whereby the respondents No.1 & 2 who are the wife and minor son of petitioner No.1 have been granted the monthly maintenance of Rs.6000/- under the

proceedings of Domestic Violence Act.

3. Perusal of the order would show that the maintenance of Rs.3000/- each to the respondent/wife and the son has been granted. The revisional Court by its impugned order dated 17.11.2016 in the revision bearing No.R-32/2015 while affirming the order of the trial Court passed on 06.11.2015 came to a finding that no interference is required taking into the nature of the relation in between the parties and the status. The revisional Court has observed the fact that the petitioner has tried to conceal his income and did not believe certain documents filed by petitioner No.1 by which the petitioner tried to project his income. Taking into the nature of the order and the quantum which has been granted and further taking into the judicial notice of the fact that it is the inflation which is prevailing in the society the amount of Rs.3000/- each to the wife and the son cannot be said to be exorbitant or inflated so as to interfere with the same.

4. The petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.

Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu