Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRR/481/2019 of SANJAY Vs SMT. RITU 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. 481 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1.SANJAY S/O BHAGWANSINGH SOLANKI GRAMNAI BIJJUKHEDI, POST MANGLIYA, TEH.SANWER, DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.BHAGWAN SING H S/O DEVI SINGH SOLANKIVILLAGE NAI BIJJUKHEDI, POST MANGLIYA,TEHSIL SANWER, (MADHYA PRADESH)VILLAGE NAI BIJJUKHEDI, POST MANGLIYA,TEHSIL SANWER, (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.RAJU BAI W/O BHAGWANSINGH SOLANKIVILLAGE NAI BIJJUKHEDI, POST MANGLIYA,TEHSIL SANWER, (MADHYA PRADESH)VILLAGE NAI BIJJUKHEDI, POST MANGLIYA,TEHSIL SANWER, (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.VINOD S/O BHAGWANSINGH SOLANKI VILLAGENAI BIJJUKHEDI, POST MANGLIYA, TEHSILSANWER, (MADHYA PRADESH)NAI BIJJUKHEDI, POST MANGLIYA, TEHSILSANWER, (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE FOR THE PETITIONERS)
.....PETITIONERS
AND
SMT. RITU W/O SANJAY SOLANKI GRAM NAIBIJJUKHEDI, TEH. SANWER, DISTT. INDORE (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI ASHUTOSH SURANA - ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENT
This revision coming on for orders this day, th e 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
Upon perusal of the order-sheet dated 22.01.2024, it is noted that no oneappeared on behalf of the applicant and the case was adjourned for four weeks.
Today also there is no representation of the applicant. Considering the same,matter is heard on merit.
2. The present revision is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C.challenging the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,Nagda, Dist. Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No.40/2017 whereby the Court hasawarded Rs.1000/- and Rs.3000/- for maintenance.
3. Upon perusal of the pleadings and the evidence, it is evident that therespondent stated that she was married with the present applicant in the year2012. After sometime, the applicant started demanding dowry and subjectingher to domestic violence. She started living with her father. The trial Courtrecorded a finding that because of domestic violence, the applicant startedliving separately and awarded the maintenance as mentioned herein-above.Regarding income, the respondent stated that the applicant is having his ownagricultural land and is earning Rs.30,000/- per month, however, the aforesaidfact could not be established.
4. After considering the evidence, the Court has taken notional income of theapplicant and awarded Rs.3000/- per month maintenance. I do not find anyillegality or perversity in the order and impugned award by the trial Court is justand proper. The revision is dismissed.
soumya
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE