Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20074 (JHR)

SATYAPRAKASH VERMA ALIAS SUBHASH v. SHIKHA KUMARI ALIAS GUDDI ALIAS GURIYA

C.M.P./703/2024 · 2025-01-02

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 703 of 2024 ---- Satyaprakash Verma @ Subhash aged about 32 years, son of Suresh Ram Verma resident of 302, Aditya Enclave, Devi Nagar Hesag, PO Hatia, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi …… …. … Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- Shikha Kumari @ Guddi @ Guriya aged about 27 years wife of Satyaparakash Verma, daughter of Raja Ram resident of Nauwa Toli, Kamla Kant Road, Near Neha Apartment Pahari Mandir Road, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi ……. Opposite Party/ Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Suresh Prajapati, Advocate For the Respondents :- ---- 4/02.01.2025 This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Original Suit No.305 of 2021 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-1, Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by the impugned order the learned court has allowed the interim maintenance in favour of the wife. He submits that the main petition is still pending and by the interim arrangement, the same has been made. He submits that the point of adultery has not been decided and in view of that the said order is illegal. 3. By the impugned order the learned court has passed the order of interim maintenance in favour of the wife and child and so far as the point or adultery is concerned it has been rightly held that it can be the subject matter of trial which can be proved by way of providing opportunity to both the sides by way of leading evidence. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is husband of the sole respondent and by way of interim arrangement only the said amount is directed to be paid and all the grounds can be taken by the petitioner in the pending suit which is not decided as yet. 4. In view of above, no positive order is required to be passed at this stage and as such, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take all the grounds in the pending suit which is still pending. 5. With above observation and direction this petition is disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,