ABHINAB SHARMA v. BELLINA M. MARAK
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE REVATI MOHITE DERE, CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2026-02-23. ABHINAB SHARMA v. BELLINA M. MARAK. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 03 2026:MLHC:108 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. Petn. No. 64/2025 Date of Order: 23. 02. 2026 Shri Abhinab Sharma ..... Petitioner Vs. Smti. Bellina M. Marak ..... Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. M. L. Nongpiur, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. S. Dey, Adv with Ms. E. Dkhar, Adv i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc. : ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No JUDGMENT: (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the orders th rd dated 30 July, 2025 and 3 September, 2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, West Garo Hills District, th Tura, in CR Case No. 32 of 2024.
Vide order dated 30 July, 2025, which was ex-parte, the learned Judge directed the petitioner to pay ₹15,000/- per month to the respondent and the rd child and vide order dated 3 September, 2025, the petitioner was directed to clear all arrears from the date of order i. e. , from th 30 July, 2025. 3. Considering the nature of dispute and the relationship between the parties i. e. , the petitioner and the respondent, being husband and wife, the parties were referred for mediation. It appears that in the mediation, the petitioner agreed to pay ₹6000/- for the child-Yash. It is the respondent contention that she had not agreed to the said amount. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the th impugned order dated 30 July, 2025 was an ex-parte order, without hearing the petitioner.
He submits that by the said order, the petitioner has been directed to pay ₹15,000/- to the respondent every month and that the said amount was to be paid by the disbursing authority where the petitioner was working. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the ex-parte order be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the petitioner without prejudice to his rights and contentions, is ready to pay ₹6000/- per month instead of ₹15,000/- to the respondent from th rd 30 July, 2025, as directed vide order dated 3 September, 2025. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the instructions of the respondent, who is present in Court, states that the respondent also without prejudice to her rights and contentions is ready to accept ₹6000/- per month, since she is in dire need of money. 6.
Learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has not received the entire arrears and has received only a small amount. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will deposit whatever are the arrears directly in the respondent’s account within two weeks from today. Statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted. 7. In view of the aforesaid and without going into the merits th of the order dated 30 July, 2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, West Garo Hills District, Tura th (ex-parte order), the said interim order dated 30 July, 2025 stands quashed and set aside and CR Case No. 32 of 2024, i. e. , the interim application is restored back to its original file. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, West Garo Hills District, Tura to decide the said interim application after hearing the petitioner and the respondent.
Till the interim application is heard, without prejudice to the contentions of either of the parties, the petitioner shall regularly pay ₹6000/- to the st respondent every month i. e. on (1 Monday of the month). 8. The petition is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 9. It is made clear that this petition has not been heard on merits and as such, all contentions of all parties on merits are kept open. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not seek adjournments and will cooperate with the learned Judge in disposing of the interim application expeditiously. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice Meghalaya 23. 02. 2026 “Lam DR-PS” Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY Date: 2026. 02. 24 15:08:35 IST
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.