High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRR/494/2015dismissed

Mahesh Pradhan v. Smt. Jayshree @ Mansi

2015-07-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 494 of 2015

1. Mahesh Pradhan S/o Krishna Kumar Pradhan Aged About 32 years Shiksha Karmi - Class 03, Village - Kodia, Block Pithoura, District - Mahasamund And R/o And Agriculturist Village Barekelkhurd, Police Station And Tah. Pithora District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

1. Smt. Jayshree @ Mansi W/o Mahesh Pradhan Aged About 26 Years, Caste - Kolta, Occupation Noting D/o Kumud Sahu R/o And Present Address Village Jharband, Police Station Jharband District Bargarh, Orissa.

---- Respondent For Applicant - Shri A.K. Prasad and Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Advocates.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Order On Board 21/07/2015 Heard on admission.

2. Challenge in the present revision is to the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) in M.Cr.C.No.89/2014, directing the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is earning Rs.9,000/- per month and therefore it would be difficult for him to pay Rs.5,000/- to the non-applicant. He further submits that respondent herself has left the company of the applicant and as such, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

4. A bare perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the applicant has harassed the non-applicant for demand of dowry and under the

compelling circumstances she had left the house of the applicant. The order impugned further reflects the fact that financial condition of the non-applicant is not as such by which she could maintain herself and rather there is a finding recorded by the Court below that the monthly income of the applicant is about Rs.11,000/-.

5. Considering these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the order impugned is strictly in accordance law and there is no infirmity or illegality in the same warranting any interference by this Court.

6. The revision is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) JUDGE Vijay