Back
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Vimal Murmu @ Munshi Murmu @ Bimal @ Munshi Murmu S/o Mangal Murmu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.1-State.
3. Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3.
4. The petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision application against the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj in Maintenance Case No. 330 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the maintenance petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance allowance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2-wife and Rs.500/- per month to the Opposite Party No.3-son (total Rs.2,500/- per month) with effect from the date of filing the case i.e. from 04.08.2009 by 10th day of next succeeding month and he has been further directed to pay the arrears of the maintenance allowance within 60 days from the date of the order, failing which Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 were held entitled to take the same through the process of law.
Arguments on be
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The case law provided appears to be a standalone summary of legal principles without any mention of subsequent invalidation or negative treatment.
Followed / Affirmed / Unchallenged Treatment:
The case emphasizes that proceedings under section 125 are summary and do not determine rights and obligations, and that strict proof of marriage is not required for maintenance claims. It also states that when parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption of marriage. This suggests the case is establishing or affirming legal principles that are likely followed or accepted in subsequent jurisprudence.
The mention that the High Court, as a revisional court, has no power to reassess evidence or substitute its views indicates an affirmation of the limits of revisional jurisdiction, which typically is treated as settled law unless challenged.
None of the statements explicitly indicate treatment such as being overruled or reversed. The absence of references to subsequent judicial treatment or negative comments makes the treatment of this case appear to be neutral or affirming, but without explicit confirmation, it is categorized as uncertain whether it has been questioned or challenged in later rulings.
**Source :** KAMALA VS M. R. MOHAN KUMAR - Supreme Court
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
