Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRR/1961/2018 of SMT. PUJA CHHAPRIYA Vs RAHUL CHHAPRIYA 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. 1961 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
1.SMT. PUJA CHHAPRIYA W/O SHRI RAHULCHHAPRIYA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, GRAMJETPURA DISTT. DHAR / 65, MAHESHNAGARNAYAGAON RAJGARH PS INDUSTRIAL AREARATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)CHHAPRIYA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, GRAMJETPURA DISTT. DHAR / 65, MAHESHNAGARNAYAGAON RAJGARH PS INDUSTRIAL AREARATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)2.RAVI CHHAPARIYA MINOR THROUGH NATURALGUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. POOJA CHHAPRIYAS/O RAHUL CHHAPARIYA, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,R/O GRAM JERPURA,DISTT. DHAR- HALLMUKAM - 65 MAHESHWARI NAYAGAON ,RAJGARH, POLICE STATION INDUSTRIAL AREA,(MADHYA PRADESH)GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. POOJA CHHAPRIYAS/O RAHUL CHHAPARIYA, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,R/O GRAM JERPURA,DISTT. DHAR- HALLMUKAM - 65 MAHESHWARI NAYAGAON ,RAJGARH, POLICE STATION INDUSTRIAL AREA,(MADHYA PRADESH)
(MS. SOUMYA PATHAK- ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
RAHUL CHHAPRIYA S/O RAMESH CHHAPRIYA, AGEDABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS GRAMJETPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI SHRIKANT IYER- 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
The present revision is filed challenging the order dated 08.02.2018passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in Miscellaneous CriminalCase No.104/2015, whereby, the application of the petitioner under section 125of Cr.P.C has been partly allowed and maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month has been awarded in favour of applicant no.2.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter has beensettled between the parties and divorce decree has also been passed.
3. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respondentthat the matter regarding maintenance has also been settled between the partiesat the time of decree before the trial court.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as having been renderedinfructuous.
Sourabh
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE