GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SUMIT KUAMR SOGANI V/S PALLAVI JAIN

GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 23 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 24:

1. Heard Mr. S Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. O.P Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

2. This revision petition has been directed against an order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S)-II, Kamrup (M) in Misc (D.V) Case No. 32m/2017, Guwahati whereby D.W.A (Distress Warrant of Arrest according to the petitioner) issued against the present petitioner on account of his failure to pay maintenance to the respondent as per order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the Ld. Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) in Criminal Appeal No. 137/2018 directing the petitioner to make a payment of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent and Rs. 20,000/- to the child as interim monthly maintenance totaling Rs. 50,000/- per month which was in modification of the order of the Ld. Magistrate dated 30.06.2018 directing the petitioner to pay a total of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month to the respondent in the same case.

3. For the purpose of the instant revision, it is not necessary to go into the detailed facts which, briefly put, are that the parties were married on 30.04.2007 and out of their wedlock a son was born who is presently living with the respondent, separately from the petitioner since 02.11.2016.

4. Subsequently, the respondent had approached the Ld. Court below by filing an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter the D.V Act) being Misc (DV) Case No. 32m/2017 wherein the aforesaid order of maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month was passed and subsequently, modified in appeal by the Ld. Appellate Court as stated hereinbefore.

5. Mr. S Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at the outset, that with regard to the maintainability of the instant revision petition in view of Section 29 of the DV Act which provides for an appeal against any order passed in a proceeding under the said act, the Revisional Court has power to interfere in respect of any order which is shown to be grossly erroneous, illegal or improper. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor V. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460. In the aforesaid case, the Ld. Court held that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the directions under challenge are grossly erroneous and there is no compliance with the provisions of law or the finding recorded is based on no evidence, where material evidence is ignored or judicial decision is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqK6TZEE5wteeKEyqA4sKSS00XO0OFm2SNI%2FwO1Y23Pag&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./297/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010157232024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.