Gyarsilal Dubey v. Smt. Yogita Dubey

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.778 of 2016 Gyarsilal Dubey S/o Late Bisahu Prasad Dubey Aged About 40 Years R/o Dongargarh, Jail Road, Jail Colony, Dongargar District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Civil & Revenue District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

1. Smt. Yogita Dubey W/o Gyarsilal Dubey Aged About 33 Years R/o Balaji Colony, Mandir Hasoud, P.S. - Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Hansika Dubey Aged About 4 Years Natural Guardian Her Mother Smt. Yogita Dubey R/o Balaji Colony, Mandir Hasoud, P.S. - Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ------Non-Applicants For Applicant:

Shri Rishikant Mohabia, Advocate.

For Non-Applicant:

None.

Single Bench:

Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J Order On Board 22.8.2016 1.

The instant Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 12.7.2016 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Misc. Criminal Case No.659/2015. By way of the said impugned order, the Court below has, in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C, allowed an application for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- in the share of Rs.3,000/- to Non-Applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to Non-Applicant No.2.

2.

The challenge to the said impugned order by the Applicant is that there is no reasonable ground on the part of Non-Applicant No.1 to live separately and that the present Applicant is ready to live with the Non-Applicants, yet Non-Applicant No.1 is, without justifiable reasons, not staying at her

matrimonial home.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that there is huge delay in the lodging of the complaint under Section 498-A IPC against the present Applicant as the marriage had taken place almost about 9 years ago and the complaint under Section 498-A IPC has been lodged only in the year 2015. Thus, there is a great element of doubt on the contentions and averments in the complaint. He further submits that the paying capacity of the Applicant also is not such where he can pay the amount of interim maintenance granted by the Court below.

4.

Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Applicant and on perusal of the record, what is clearly reflected from the documents enclosed along with the present Revision is that the Applicant at present is working as a Government employee i.e. the Lab Assistant and has a gross salary of Rs.19,000/-. There is an admission on the part of the present Applicant that the take home salary that he gets is more than Rs.13,000/- which being taken into consideration, the Court below has granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- to the child born to them.

5.

On perusal of the records, it further reflected that it is the only interim order which has been passed by the Court below and the final adjudication part is yet to be done. The contentions which had been raised by learned Counsel for the Applicant are all matters which can be decided only after the evidence on either side is recorded. Only on the basis of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Applicant, it would not be proper at this juncture to enter into the merits of the case which is yet to be gone into by the Trial Court itself. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, no strong case is made

out by the Applicant for the reason that the Applicant has not been able to show as to whether Non-Applicant No.1 is employed anywhere so that she can sustain herself. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity on the part of the Court below in granting the interim maintenance vide the impugned order.

6.

Thus, the instant Revision Petition being devoid of merits, the same is accordingly rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Priya