Dismissed

Gopal Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC5 Dec 2017Cr.Rev./794/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment condones a delay of 78 days in filing a criminal revision under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. challenging an order enhancing maintenance. The main revision was subsequently dismissed as the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's order.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 78 days in filing revision was condoned; the revision application was dismissed.

Gopal Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2015

¶3

Gopal Kumar … … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Urmila Devi … … Opposite Parties

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P.

¶6

7/05.12.2017 I. A. No. 4671 of 2017:

¶7

Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶8

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 78 days in filing this revision application.

¶10

Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 78 days in filing this revision is hereby condoned.

¶11

I. A. No. 4671 of 2017 stands disposed of.

¶12

Cr. Revision No. 794 of 2015:

¶13

This application is directed against the order dated 17.01.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 39 of 2011 by which the application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the maintenance amount has been enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs. 3,000/-.

¶14

It appears that in M. P. Case No. 146 of 1998, an order was passed on 01.06.1999 allowing the application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner was ordered to make payment of Rs. 500/- as maintenance. Subsequently in the year 2011, on account of the rise in the commodities, an enhancement application was filed which was allowed on 17.01.2015 which is impugned to the present application. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner seems to have been assessed of having sufficient income from agriculture as also by plying vehicle and the amount of Rs. 3,000/- which has been

¶15

-2-

¶16

awarded by the impugned order is justifiable amount considering the present day price index. Sufficient reasons has been assigned in the impugned order dated 17.01.2015 with respect to the enhancement of maintenance.

¶17

There being no reason to differ with the impugned order therefore, this application fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶19

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Gopal Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Kumar 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

Arjun Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Neyaz Ansari Vs Ashmina Khatoon and Ors.

Rajesh Ranjan Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Nand Kishore Sah Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Raju Mukhi And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Lalit Kujur Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.