Smt. Basanti v. RgSPON&ENT
Case at a glance
- Bench
- T P SHARMA
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Consequently, petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Order unpugned relating to quashiaent of fhe order of maiatenance avvarded to present petitioner No. 1 Sint. Basaati Rs. 700/- per m.0nth is hereby quashed and order passed by trial Court is hereby restored. Respondent…
Judgment
Smt. Basanti. W/o Bhawanilal Jangre, aged about 29 years, .^•^y -^sy^ <77 ^^o^.'*' '-l;*'_"(^?·^*^^^c>
Minor Ku. Pinki &/o Bhawanilal, aged about 6 years,
Minor Ku. Priyanka D/o Bhawanilal, aged about 4 years, Minors (Pet. No.2 & 3) guardian through Natural - Mother - Basanti, W/o Bhawanilal, \-cp All are resident of Miriguda, P.S. & Tah. bharamjaigarh, bistt. Raigarh (C6) VERSUS y, w- '" >•••'' RgSPON&ENT NON-APPLICANT 35 years, Bhawanilal Jangre, S/o Labho Ram, aged occupation - Service (Shiksha Karft'.i - 6rade III), R/o Vill - Kapu, P.S. KapU, Tah. DharGmjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C6) Presently R/o Kishora, Khapri, P.S. - Akaltara, Government Amartal, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa (CG) 'Primary School PETITION.UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCED.URE CO&E, 1973 ^i
3. Siat. Basanti Minor Ku. Pinld Miaor Ku. Priyaaka Bhawaiulal Jangre PETITION UNDER SECTIOBE 482 OP CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:-Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Suni Sahu, Advocate for the respondent. ORDBR (Passedoa 23/03/2012) By fhis petltion under Section 482 of the Code of Crixninal Procedure, 1973, petitioners have prayed for quashnient of the order dated 17/2/2010 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Raigarh in cnminal revision No. 42/09 whereby order dated 19/3/2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharam.jaigarh in cruninal case No. 24/06 has been inodificd and order awarding luaaitenaace Rs. 700/- per inonfh to petitiouer No.
1 has been quashed. Leamed counsel for fhe parties arc heard, Order iinpugned and record of Court below perused. As per Paras 10 Ss 12 off he order impugned Revisional Court has inodifled the oiider only on tlie ground fhat petitioner No. 1 is eanung as daily wager aiid she used to eamiag Rs. 20/- to Rs, 30/- per day therefore she is able ittauitaiaing herself. Petitioner No, 1 is legatly wedded wife of i-esponident, she is not baving any source of i&conie, it is dif&cult to hold fhat iacoine of Rs. 20/- to •L- 30/- per day as a labour work is a income of petitioner No. 1, while arriviag at a finding fhat petitioner No. 1 is able to luauitain hersetf, Court below has cominitted aii Ulegality.
Consequently, petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Order unpugned relating to quashiaent of fhe order of maiatenance avvarded to present petitioner No. 1 Sint. Basaati Rs. 700/- per m.0nth is hereby quashed and order passed by trial Court is hereby restored. Respondent is liable to pay inaintenaace ofRs. 700/- per luoafh to petitioner No. 1 as ordered by the trial Court. Sd/'- T.P. Sharma Judge ^
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.