ADESHIKA @ PAYAL v. RITESH
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 2024-02-05. ADESHIKA @ PAYAL v. RITESH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA th ON THE 5 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 422 of 2015 BETWEEN:- 1. ADESHIKA @ PAYAL W/O RITESH JAIN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 33 SETHJI KA BAZAR RATLAM / GAYATRI BHAWAN INFRONT OF MEHRA NURSINGH HOME H. NO. 800 KATJU NAGAR RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. ADESHIKA THRU. SINDHA S/O RITESH JAIN OCCUPATION: NIL GAYATRI BHAWAN, MEHRA NARSING HOME \KE SAMANE H. NO. 800,KATJUNAGAR RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH) ..... PETITIONER AND RITESH S/O ANOKHILAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 33 SETH JI KA BAZAR (MADHYA PRADESH) ..... RESPONDENTS T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the following: ORDER None for the parties. Case is called twice. The present matter is pending since 2015. The present revision is filed under section 397 Cr. P. C. and section 19(4) of Family Court's Act being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4. 3.
2015 passed Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA Signing time: 2/5/2024 6:01:09 PM by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in criminal case No. 291/2014 whereby the court has awarded Rs. 3000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2000/- to applicant NO. 2. Upon perusal of record and finding of the court, it is noted that income of the respondent has been assessed to be Rs. 5000-6000/- per month as unskilled labour. Applicant has not adduced any evidence to show that applicant was having bakery and ice-cream parlour and his income was Rs. 1. 5 Lacs. No documentary evidence has been produced on record in regard to the said income. After considering the entire evidence, the Court has recorded a finding that income of the respondent is only Rs. 5000-6000/- per month being unskilled labour. Considering the aforesaid finding, the court has rightly awarded Rs. 3000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2000/- to applicant No. 2. In view of aforesaid, no case is made out for interference.
The Revision is dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE MK Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA Signing time: 2/5/2024 6:01:09 PM
Source: High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.