SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 32198

ABOUT 30 YEARS, VILL. AND POST NAIGARHI TAH. NAIGARHI (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI RAMNATH DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE) AND REETA MISHRA W/O SHRI DEEPAK MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, BEHIND GAYATRI SCHOOL / ALOK TRACTOR SANJAY NAGAR P.S. VISHWAVIDYALA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

Advocates:
Prakash Upadhyay,

ORDER

Heard.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed assailing the order dated 12.11.2014 whereby applicant/husband has been directed to give an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent wife.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that order has been passed ex- parte and no opportunity of hearing was given to him. Therefore, learned trial Court be directed to give opportunity of hearing to the applicant/accused and to pass a bi-parte order.

4. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that notice in MJC on the notice and notice has been duly served upon him. As notice was duly served upon him, and he despite service of notice failed to appear before the Court. Learned trial Court did not commit any error in passing the ex-parte order.

6. It also cannot be overlooked that only Rs.4,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to the respondent/wife. An amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance cannot be said to be on a higher side as now-a-days when prices are high rocketing, hardly any person can maintain herself/himself in an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, when the awarded maintenace amount is also on the lower side, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court.

Hence, no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety is found in the impugned order.

Consequently, this revision application being devoid of merits is dismissed. 7. Record of the Courts below along with a copy of order be sent down to Court concerned.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) Jasleen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top