Ashish Oajha vs. Arti D/O Pappu Miya

Held

The Court held that there was no illegality in the impugned order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month. The reasoning was that both the Magistrate and the Sessions Court had taken into consideration the relevant documents, including GST documents, bio-data, and other pertinent papers, before passing their respective orders. The Court found the application to be devoid of merit and substance. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Ashish Oajha, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging an order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. This order affirmed a previous order by the Magistrate granting interim maintenance to the respondent, Arti, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The respondent had sought maintenance, and the Magistrate initially ordered interim maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month. The applicant's revision against this order was dismissed by the Sessions Court. Both lower courts considered documents, including GST documents, bio-data, and others, in arriving at their decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is illegal, considering the documents, including GST documents, considered by the Magistrate and affirmed by the Sessions Court? The applicant argued that the lower courts erred in granting interim maintenance. The judgment does not explicitly detail the applicant's specific arguments beyond challenging the legality of the maintenance order. The respondent, through her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., sought maintenance. The revenue or State did not appear to be a party to this criminal proceeding, and therefore, no arguments were recorded on their behalf.