Allowed

Birju Ravidas v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC6 Sept 2016Cr.Rev./241/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed a Family Court order fixing maintenance at Rs. 8,000 despite the petitioner's declared lower income, and remanded the matter for fresh assessment considering all available evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order fixing quantum of maintenance is quashed and set aside; the matter is remanded to the Family Court to pass a fresh order after considering all materials on record.

Birju Ravidas Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 241 of 2016

¶2

Birju Ravidas, S/o Late Mahadeo Ravidas, R/o Village & P.O.Barsot, P.S.- Barhi, District- Hazaribagh.

¶3

... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand 2. Sarita Devi, W/o Birju Ravidas, R/o Village & P.O.Barsot, P.S.- Barhi, District- Hazaribagh, at present resident of Village- Malkera, P.O. & P.S.- Katras, DistrictDhanbad. ... … Opp. Parties

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶7

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.K. Pandey, A.P.P. For the Opp. Party. No. 2. : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate ---------

¶8

09/06.09.2016 Heard Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶9

This application is directed against the judgment dated 05.02.2016 passed in Maintenance Petition No. 235 of 2010 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad by which the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- to opposite party no. 2 and her minor child respectively.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a village Postman whose take home pay is Rs. 9,483/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although a specific statement was given by the petitioner in his show cause but the same was not considered and merely on the statement of the opposite party no. 2 the maintenance amount has been fixed at Rs. 8,000/- per month.

¶11

Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the impugned order and has stated that admittedly the petitioner is an employee of Postal Department. It has been submitted that the petitioner earns Rs. 18,000/- per month as being an employee of the Postal Department as well as from other sources.

¶12

-2-

¶13

It appears from the impugned judgment dated 05.02.2016 that the learned court below has merely considered the evidence of the opposite party no. 2 while fixing the quantum of maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month. Although the salary slip of the petitioner was never brought on record as has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner but a statement has been made in the show cause with respect to his income and this fact has not been properly appreciated by the learned court below while assessing the monthly income of the petitioner.

¶14

In such circumstances, therefore the impugned order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Maintenance Petition No. 235 of 2010, in absence of any justifiable reason with respect to the quantum of monthly maintenance awarded is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the materials available on record and if necessary by allowing the parties to produce further evidence both oral and documentary in support of their contention.

¶15

This application stands allowed.

¶16

Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.

¶17

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶18

Alok/-

Birju Ravidas v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birju Ravidas v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhruv Shukla Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jayant Kumar Akhouri And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nandu Pandit And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Arjun Pandit And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ajay Kumar Agrawal Alias Ajay Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.