Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Patesh Kumar Vs. Mayank and anr.

Patesh Kumar vs Mayank and anr.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 15, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511926

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P. No. 5 of 2003
Subject
Family
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Family
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 227; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Patesh Kumar

Advocate Lalwani, Adv.

Respondent

Mayank and anr.

Advocate None

Legal References

Reported In
II(2003)DMC125

Excerpt

- ordera.m. sapre, j.1. it is a writ under article 227 of the constitution of india. it is filed to challenge an interim order, dated 27.9.2002, passed in civil suit no. 23-a of 1996 by district judge, jhabua on an application made by the applicants for claiming interim maintenance under the provisions of hindu adoptions and maintenance act.2. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, i find absolutely no merit in this writ.3. the need to file this writ has arisen, because according to petitioner he has no right to file civil revision which he could have filed earlier under section 115 of c.p. code i.e. prior to amendment in the c.p.c. which was brought into effect from 1.7.2002. indeed, no writ lies against an interim order much less under article 227 of the constitution of india. that apart, when i read the impugned order, i find absolutely no merit in this writ. it is quite a reasoned order and hence, does not call for any interference. the learned district judge has been pleased to fix an interim maintenance payable to two minor children by the present petitioner, who' is non-applicant, in the original case being their father. a payment of rs. 250/- each i.e. rs. 500/- per month for the maintenance of two children can never be regarded as unreasonable or arbitrary. it is much more so when it takes into account the monthly income of the father (non-applicant). it is a pious obligation of a father to maintain his minor children after the death of their mother.4. the only question involved in this petition was, whether fixation of rs. 250/- per month to each child (two in number) was legal and justified or not in my opinion, it is legal and justified.5. petition thus, fails and is dismissed in limine.

Full Judgment

ORDER

A.M. Sapre, J.

1. It is a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is filed to challenge an interim order, dated 27.9.2002, passed in Civil Suit No. 23-A of 1996 by District Judge, Jhabua on an application made by the applicants for claiming interim maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find absolutely no merit in this writ.

3. The need to file this writ has arisen, because according to petitioner he has no right to file civil revision which he could have filed earlier Under Section 115 of C.P. Code i.e. prior to amendment in the C.P.C. which was brought into effect from 1.7.2002. Indeed, no writ lies against an interim order much less under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That apart, when I read the impugned order, I find absolutely no merit in this writ. It is quite a reasoned order and hence, does not call for any interference. The learned District judge has been pleased to fix an interim maintenance payable to two minor children by the present petitioner, who' is non-applicant, in the original case being their father. A payment of Rs. 250/- each i.e. Rs. 500/- per month for the maintenance of two children can never be regarded as unreasonable or arbitrary. It is much more so when it takes into account the monthly income of the father (non-applicant). It is a pious obligation of a father to maintain his minor children after the death of their mother.

4. The only question involved in this petition was, whether fixation of Rs. 250/- per month to each child (two in number) was legal and justified or not In my opinion, it is legal and justified.

5. Petition thus, fails and is dismissed in limine.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial