AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 233 wordsArvind Singh Chandel, J
Heard on admission.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 24.4.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in M.J.C. No.200 of 2018, whereby the Family Court has allowed the application of the Respondents for grant of interim maintenance and granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- in favour of Respondent No.1/wife of the Applicant and that of Rs.800/- in favour of Respondent No.2/son of the Applicant.
Shri Govind Dewangan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has always been ready and willing to keep the Respondents/wife and son with him, but the wife is not residing with him without any sufficient cause. Therefore, the Respondents are not entitled for grant of any interim maintenance.
Admittedly, Respondent No.1 is the wife of the Applicant and Respondent No.2 is the son of the Applicant and they are residing separately from the Applicant. Respondent No.1/wife is residing separately from the Applicant without any sufficient cause or not is a matter of evidence. Since both the Respondents are wife and son of the Applicant and they are residing separately from him, the Family Court has rightly granted the interim maintenance in their favour.
Thus, I find no merit in the instant revision. The revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine. However, the Family Court is directed to decide the matter as early as possible.