Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRR/3974/2023 of CHINTAN GUPTA Vs POOJA GUPTA on 5 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLAON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3974 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
CHINTAN GUPTA S/O SHRI PREMSHANKAR JI GUPTA,AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JOB R/O 72REVENUE NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI DEEPTANSHU SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.POOJA GUPTA D/O SHRI RAMKUMAR GUPTA,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JOB R/O912 A SUDAMA NAGAR INDORE (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JOB R/O912 A SUDAMA NAGAR INDORE (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.SHRISHTI GUPTA D/O CHINTAN GUPTA, AGEDABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT 72,REVENUE NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT 72,REVENUE NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.SHUBHI GUPTA THROUGH MOTHER POOJAGUPTA D/O RAMKUMAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 41YEARS, OCCUPATION: JOB 912A, SUDAMA NAGARINDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)GUPTA D/O RAMKUMAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 41YEARS, OCCUPATION: JOB 912A, SUDAMA NAGARINDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT KUMAR AGNIHOTRI - ADVOCATE FOR THERESPONDENT NOS.1-3)
This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
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
The present Revision is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C r/w Section19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated27/7/2023 passed by III[rd] Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in case No.MJCR 797/2018 whereby the Family Court has declined to awardmaintenance to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, however, awarded Rs.20,000/- permonth interim maintenance to the respondent No.3 from the date of application.
2. Upon perusal of the impugned order, the Court has held that thepresent petitioner is working as Scientist and is earning Rs.96,050/- per monthsalary.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has huge liability,therefore, the award of Rs.20,000/- from the date of application is on excessiveside. According to him the arrears is more than Rs.13,00,000/- because themaintenance has been awarded from the date of application. The final case formaintenance is pending and the same is likely to be concluded, however, hedoes not challenge, so far the award of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per monthto respondent No.3 is concerned. He is only aggrieved with the amount fromthe date of application.
4. Counsel for the respondents submits that the order of interimmaintenance is appropriate and does not call for any interference.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the interim maintenance was awarded after nearly 5 years by theFamily Court and the final case for maintenance is pending, the impugned orderis modified to the extent that the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the respondentNo.3 shall be paid from the date of order i.e. 27/7/2023 and the arrears shall besubject to the final outcome of main petition. The petitioner shall pay arrears ofmaintenance to respondent No.3 from 27/7/2023 and shall continue to paymaintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month without committing any default. Thepetitioner shall deposit the arrears within period of 15 days from today withoutseeking any further time. He shall also continue to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent No.3. The Family Court is expected to concludethe proceedings expeditiously.
6. With the aforesaid, the present Revision is partly allowed anddisposed off.
PK
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE