Gauhati High Court
Babulal Jain @ Gunjan Jain vs Mimisha Das @ Moon on 14 August, 2024
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010148352024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./899/2024
BABULAL JAIN @ GUNJAN JAIN
S/O SRI MANNALAL JAIN,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 1, K.S.T. ROAD, OPPOSITE
MEMBERS HOSTEL, P.S. DIPHU,
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM
VERSUS
MIMISHA DAS @ MOON
D/O LATE GOPAL DAS
R/O WARD NO. 1,
K.S.T. ROAD, OPPOSITE MEMBERS HOSTEL, C/O STUDIO MADONA, P.S.
DIPHU, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORA, MS R MEDHI
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
14.08.2024
1. Heard learned counsel Mr. R. Bora for the petitioner.
Page No.# 2/3
2. This application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the Judgment and order dated 13.06.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karbi Anglong, in Misc. Case No. 07/2021 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 1000/- P.M. to the opposite party and Rs. 6000/- P.M. to his daughter.
3. It is averred that in connection with DV Case No. 02/2020, vide order dated 11.09.2021, the DV Case was amicably settled in the Lok Adaalat between both the parties and a lump sum of Rs. 9 lacs was received by the respondent. The judgment and order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in connection with Misc. Case No. 07/2021 clearly reflects that the petitioner has received Rs. 9 lacs on an amicable settlement of the DV Case No. 02/2020.
4. It is contended that immediately after the proceeding of the aforementioned DV Case, the respondent initiated a case under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, and vide order dated 13.06.2024, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 7000/- to the respondent and her daughter.
5. It is submitted that the judgment was erroneously passed as the learned Trial Court directed due due consideration, the averment of the petitioner in his written statement that the respondent deserted him and thus he was not liable to maintain the respondent.
6. It appears that there is a prima facie case to grant interim stay of the payment of monthly maintenance to the petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.PC.
Page No.# 3/3
7. Call for the Trial Court Records of both Misc. Case No. 07/2021 and DV Case No. 02/2020.
8. Meanwhile, the payment of Rs. 1000/- P.M. to the respondent is stayed till the next date of listing whereas the petitioner shall continue payment of Rs. 6000/- maintenance to his daughter.
9. Issue notice to respondent No. 2 through registered post with A/D as well as usual process returnable within 4 (four) weeks.
10. List accordingly.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant