Harsh Kumar Thakur v. Smt. Nutan Singh

Page No.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 606 of 2015 • Harsh Kumar Thakur, S/o Shri Krishna Singh Thakur, Aged About 35 Years, Occupation- Service Teacher, R/o Village Lorami Ranigaon, Thana and Tahsil- Lormi, Civil District Bilaspur, Revenue District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• Smt. Nutan Singh, W/o Shri Harsh Kumar Thakur, Aged About 30 Years Occupation- House Wife, R/o Village- Ramanujnagar, Thana and Tahsil- Ramanujnagar, Civil and Revenue District-Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent __________________________________________________________ For Applicant :

Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 12/02/2021 Heard.

1. This revision petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.2015 passed by the learned Third Additional Session Judge, Surajpur, District-Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.07/2014.

2. Respondent is wife of this applicant, who had filed an application under the provisions of Protection of Women's from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was contested by this applicant. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur passed the order dated 30.6.2014 directed the applicant to make payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.8000/- to respondent and return the stridhan of the respondent. This order was challenged in appeal which has been decided by the impugned order. The appeal was partly allowed modifying the date from which the monthly maintenance was to be paid to the respondent and the details of the stridhan.

Page No.2

3. The present revision has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order passed.

4. It is the submission of the applicant counsel, that the applicant now does not want to press upon this revision petition and prayer has been made to withdraw this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for respondent has no objection in this respect.

6. Considered on the submissions. As it is an admitted case, therefore, revision petition cannot be dismissed as withdrawn. Considered on the grounds mentioned in the revision petition and perused the record of proceeding before the Court of JMFC and the appellate Court, I am of this view that there is no substance in this present revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nisha