Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRR/422/2015 of ADESHIKA @ PAYAL Vs RITESH on 5 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLAON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 422 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1.ADESHIKA @ PAYAL W/O RITESH JAIN, AGEDABOUT 23 YEARS, 33 SETHJI KA BAZAR RATLAM /GAYATRI BHAWAN INFRONT OF MEHRANURSINGH HOME H.NO.800 KATJU NAGARRATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.ADESHIKA THRU. SINDHA S/O RITESH JAINOCCUPATION: NIL GAYATRI BHAWAN, MEHRANARSING HOME \KE SAMANE H.NO.800,KATJUNAGAR RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
AND
RITESH S/O ANOKHILAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 33 SETH JI KA BAZAR(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This revision coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the following:
None for the parties.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Case is called twice.
The present matter is pending since 2015.
The present revision is filed under section 397 Cr.P.C. and section 19(4)
of Family Court's Act being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.3.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in criminal case No. 291/2014whereby the court has awarded Rs.3000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.2000/- toapplicant NO.2.
Upon perusal of record and finding of the court, it is noted that incomeof the respondent has been assessed to be Rs.5000-6000/- per month asunskilled labour. Applicant has not adduced any evidence to show thatapplicant was having bakery and ice-cream parlour and his income was Rs.1.5Lacs. No documentary evidence has been produced on record in regard to thesaid income.
After considering the entire evidence, the Court has recorded a findingthat income of the respondent is only Rs.5000-6000/- per month being unskilledlabour.
Considering the aforesaid finding, the court has rightly awardedRs.3000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.2000/- to applicant No.2.
In view of aforesaid, no case is made out for interference.
The Revision is dismissed.
MK
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE