Ramendra Masulkar v. Smt. Shweta Masulkar And ANR.

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT

BILASPUR (C.G.l Criminal Revision No. 2-2^~~\~ of 2015 <"

Ramendra Masulkar S/o Devdas Masulkar, aged about 3Q years, caste Mahar resident of village Pathar Bada,Police Station-and Tehsil Katgi ,Distric^ Balaghat Civil SE Revenue District-Balaghat ^G-)Sy^f-^ (Non-applicant)- APPLICANT

VERSUS

NON-APPLICANTS Smt. Shweta Masulkar wife of Ramendra Masulkar, aged about 28 years, ^- Kuraari Aarju daughter of Ramendra Masulkar aged about 05 years, ...^?s^--""

eWti •• \Q.'..-'--'

•s^:

^ <i t ..^ Non-applicants no. 2 is minor through legal guardian mother Smt.

Smt. Shweta Masulkar , Non-applicants are resident of through Father G. Pratap Humnekar , Near Bandha Talab Beldar Para Ward No. 36, Tehsil and district Durg ,Civil & Revenue District-Durg (C.G.) REVISION UNDER SECTION 19 (4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT READ WITH SECTION 397 & 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE1973 Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2015, passed by <"„ ., „ , „.

,„„,.

.\ ^ learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dirg (C.G.), in M.J.C. No. 75/2014, (ANNEXURB A/l), whereby the interim application of fhe non-applicants has been allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay Rs. 600/- per month to Non-applicant no. 1 and 500/- to Non-applicant no.2, as interim maintenance, hence this revision on the following facts and grounds :-

^°)) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH SB:Hon'ble Sh^i^Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Criminal Revision No.227 of 2015 Applicant Ramendra Masulkar versus Non-Applicants Smt.

Shweta and another Masulkar >- Revi_sion _ynder_ S;ect:i.on :19(4) ! of the Familv Courts Act read_with^S!ecfeipns; 3'97_ and";4@l:;of'i'the Code of Criminal Procedure, '_t.ff73 .

Appea'rance:

Shri A.C.Sahu, counsel for the applicant.

ORAX^QRDER (Passed bn 23rd March, 2015) (1) Heard on adraa.ssj-on.

• (2) The impugned order ••:by: which interim maintenance has been awarded to the Wife and minor daughter has «, been challenged on the ground that the wife is not entitled to such order as she is living separately without any sufficient cause.

(3) The purpose behind granting interim maintenance is to ensure that during pendency of the application, the wife and children are not subjected to vagrancy and starvation.

(4) As the marriage is not disputed, award of

^ interim maintenance to the wife and minor daughter is neither illegal nor exorbitant.

Therefore, fhe revision is dismissed.

___-------'^~ Sd/- M.M. Shrivastava Judge Gopal ^