Kamta Prasad Kurrey v. Smt. Lalita Bai

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 470 OF 2016 Kamta Prasad Kurrey, S/o Lakshman Kurrey, aged about 30 years, R/o Village- Japeli, Tahsil- Katghora, Civil & Revenue District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant

Versus

Smt. Lalita Bai, W/o Kamta Prasad, aged about 29 years, R/o Jhopadipara, Near Railway Colony, Korba, Tahsil and District- Korba (C.G.) (State of Chhattisgarh through District Collector is wrongly mentioned as a party in the impugned order) ... Non-applicant For Applicant :

Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13/06/2016 1.

Challenge through the present criminal revision is to the order dated 29.3.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Atrocity), Korba in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2016. 2.

Vide impugned order dated 29.3.2016, the Court below has affirmed the order dated 16.7.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, in M.J.C. No. 9 of 2014, directing the Applicant to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- as interim maintenance payable by the Applicant under the proceedings of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3.

Counsel for the Applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in law to the extent that the Court below has not properly appreciated the fact that there is already an order of maintenance passed in favour of the Non-applicant in a proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC drawn before the Family Court, Korba and therefore the impugned order is bad in law.

-24.

The challenge by the Applicant is originally to the order dated 16.7.2014 which is an order of the interim nature directing the Applicant to pay an amount of only Rs.1000/- as interim maintenance till the final adjudication of the proceedings under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said order dated 16.7.2014 was further put to challenge before the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba who has also affirmed the order dated 16.7.2014. In the opinion of this Court, it would be more appropriate if the original proceeding itself is finally adjudicated upon so as to ascertain firstly whether the Non-applicant is entitled for any maintenance amount and further if she is entitled for, what would be the proper amount. It would not be advisable at this juncture to enter into the merits of the case considering the submissions made by the Applicant particularly when the original case is yet to be decided on merits. 5.

For the foregoing reasons, the instant criminal revision in its present form being devoid of merits, the same is accordingly dismissed. 6.

However, it is expected that the parties to the dispute as well as the Court below shall make all endevours to ensure that the original case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, i.e., M.J.C. No. 9 of 2014 pending between the parties shall be adjudicated upon as expeditiously as possible.

7.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge