Chanchlesh Singare vs Smt. Rashmi Singare on 17 July, 2026

    0
    15
    ADVERTISEMENT

    This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/husband
    challenging the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family
    Court, Mandla, in MJCR No.83/2017, whereby the Family Court has
    awarded an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the respondent/wife, towards monthly
    maintenance, from the date of order.

    2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that
    previously also an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C was filed by the
    respondent/wife and after hearing both the parties was dismissed on merits
    by final order dated 27.08.2015 passed in MJC No.699/2014, therefore,
    instant second application dated 28.03.2017 could not have been allowed
    being barred by res judicata. He submits that without taking into
    consideration this aspect of the matter, the Family Court has committed an
    illegality in passing the impugned order and in allowing the second

    SPONSORED

    NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53853

    application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife by
    awarding the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/-. In support of his
    argument, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision
    of Delhi High Court in the case of Sunita & another v. Vijay Pal @ Mohd.
    Sabir & another, given in Crl.Rev.P 161/2018 on 18.08.2022.



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here