Dismissed

Bijay Kumar Chauhan v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC13 Jun 2016Cr.Rev./350/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision appeal challenging a Family Court order directing maintenance payments. The petitioner, claiming unemployment, sought revision against the lower court's finding of income and maintenance liability. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no merit in the challenge to the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no interference with the maintenance order of the Family Court.

Bijay Kumar Chauhan Vs The State Of Jharkhand And… — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2016

¶3

Bijay Kumar Chauhan .... Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Nandini Kumari … Opposite Parties

¶6

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

--For the Petitioner :Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :Mr. Mukesh Kumar, A.P.P. Order No. 02 Dated 13th June 2016

¶9

Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

In this application, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 03.03.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Maintenance Petition No. 07 of 2015 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 and Rs. 1000/- to her daughter till she is married or gainfully employed as maintenance. The petitioner is further directed to make payment of all arrear amount within two months from the date of order as well as Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.

¶11

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is unemployed and since there is no source of income of the petitioner, the petitioner is not in a position to make payment of maintenance amount as directed by the learned court below. It has also been submitted that the income of the petitioner has neither been proved by the opposite party No. 2 nor there is any finding with respect to the fact that the petitioner earns Rs. 20-25 thousand per month. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has clearly deposed in his evidence that he does not have any source of income.

¶12

It appears that the petitioner was repeatedly given opportunities to file show cause, but since he did not choose to do so he was subsequently debarred from filing show cause. In his evidence, the petitioner has stated of his status of being an unemployed person. The opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, had consistently stated that the petitioner earns Rs. 20-25 thousand per month and that the petitioner is a Software Engineer.

¶13

The learned court below has rightly considered the income of the petitioner and has directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance to be paid to the opposite party No. 2 and her

¶14

¶15

daughter. There does not appear to be any error in the judgment dated 03.03.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Maintenance Petition No. 07 of 2015 and in such circumstances therefore the same does not require any interference by this Court. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶17

Bijay Kumar Chauhan v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijay Kumar Chauhan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Prasad Kushwaha Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sudarshan Saw Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Mohammad Bandali Sekh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Uttam Raut Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Mahendra Rawani Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.