Dismissed

Mahendra Dusadh v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC14 Jun 2016Cr.Rev./424/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the petitioner's revision application challenging a 2011 order enhancing maintenance. The court held the petitioner could not deny the marriage fact after 25 years without challenging the 1986 order and found the enhancement meritorious.

What did the court decide?

Application for revision against the maintenance enhancement order is dismissed.

Mahendra Dusadh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 424 of 2011

¶3

Mahendra Dusadh, Son of Kaleshwar Dusadh, Resident of Bhowra ( Behind Area Office), P.O. Bhowra, P.S. Jorapokhar, District-Dhanbad.

¶4

….. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Asha Devi, Daughter of Mahadeo Paswan, Resident of Patherdih, Ajmera (Durga Mandir), P.O. Patherdih, P.S. Sudamdih, District-Dhanbad.

¶8

….O pposite Parties

¶9

Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶10

-------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, APP For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate --------

¶11

08/14.06.2016 Heard the parties.

¶12

This application is directed against the judgment dated 8.4.2011, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Dhanbad in Cr. Misc. No. 7 of 2011, by which the application filed on behalf of O.P. No. 2 under section 127 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs.300 to Rs.600/- per month.

¶13

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the factum of marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party no. 2 has been denied by the petitioner and in fact the opposite party no. 2 is married with one Sudarshan Paswan. It has further been submitted that such statement made by the petitioner has never been denied by the opposite party no. 2 by filing a counter affidavit. Learned counsel submits that although the earlier order for making payment of maintenance amount of Rs.300/- per month was made in the year 1987, the same was an ex parte order and the petitioner was not aware of the same so as to make challenge to the said order.

¶14

It appears that earlier in the year 1986, on the application made by the opposite party no. 2, an amount of maintenance of Rs.300/- per month was awarded to the opposite party no. 2. Subsequently, on an application made under section 127 Cr.P.C. , the amount of maintenance was enhanced from Rs.300/- to Rs.600/- per

¶15

-2-

¶16

month. It is admitted that when the order of maintenance earlier passed in the year 1986, which was based on the fact that the opposite party no. 2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner, was never challenged by the petitioner, at this stage, after expiry of more than 25 years, the petitioner cannot be permitted to deny the factum of marriage. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, the same has merely been enhanced from Rs.300 to Rs.600/- per month, which is also on a much lower side.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid fact, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 8.4.2011 and there being no reason to cause interference in the said order, this application is hereby dismissed.

¶18

( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶19

Rakesh/

Mahendra Dusadh v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Dusadh v. 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

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.

Hifza Arif Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bihari Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.