Partly allowed

Santosh Kumar Ranjan v. Shashi Kiran Ranjan Alias Shashi Devi

Jharkhand HC7 Aug 2018Cr.Rev./332/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against a Family Court order granting maintenance, the High Court reduced the monthly amount allocated to the first respondent from Rs.15,000 to Rs.8,000 based on the petitioner's lower net salary, while maintaining the amount for the minor respondent.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance to the first respondent reduced to Rs.8,000 per month; maintenance to the second respondent remains at Rs.5,000 per month.

Santosh Kumar Ranjan Vs Shashi Kiran Ranjan Alias… — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 332 of 2018

¶3

----------Santosh Kumar Ranjan. …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Shashi Kiran Ranjan @ Shashi (Devi).

¶6

Adamya Rudra(Minor). ….Opposite Parties

¶7

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate For the State : APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate -----

¶8

03/7.8.2018 Heard the parties.

¶9

This application is directed against the order dated 2.2.2018, passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 181 of 2013 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the O.P. No. 1 under section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs.10,000/-per month and Rs.5,000/- per month to the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

¶10

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the quantum of maintenance, which has been imposed upon the petitioner is an exorbitant amount. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is posted in Central Reserve Police Force in high risk zone in Kistawar, Jammu & Kashmir. Learned counsel while producing the copy of pay slip for the month of February, 2018 at the bar has stated that the net salary of the petitioner is Rs.31,772/- which includes high risk allowance of Rs.9700/-since the petitioner is posted in a high risk area. Learned counsel submits that once the petitioner is transferred from the high risk zone, he will not be entitled to the said allowance. Learned counsel also submits that the ration money, which the petitioner is getting of Rs.2740/-shall also not be included in his salary. Learned counsel submits that the quantum of maintenance be reduced substantially.

¶11

Learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand has submitted that the learned court below after assessing the income of the petitioner to be Rs.42,000/- has granted Rs.15,000/- per month in total in favour of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. He submits that quantum of maintenance is in commensuration with the income of the petitioner.

¶12

It appears that learned court below while passing the order dated 2.2.2018 had come to the conclusion that the petitioner gets a salary of Rs.42,000/- per month. However, it has not been specifically stated as to whether the same is a gross salary or net salary. The salary slip for the month of February, 2018 has been produced at the bar, from which it appears that gross salary of the petitioner

¶13

-2-

¶14

is Rs.48,545/-and after necessary deductions, same comes to around Rs.31,772/-. It also appears that high risk allowance and ration money come to Rs.12,440/-. The petitioner may not be entitled to the said allowance if the petitioner is transferred to a low risk zone. Be that as it may, since salary of the petitioner is Rs.31,772/-, the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/-in favour of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 needs to be rectified.

¶15

Accordingly, this application stands allowed by only interfering in the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned court below by reducing the monthly maintenance to the O.P. No. 1 to Rs.8,000/- per month. So far as O.P. No. 2 is concerned, Rs.5,000/-shall remain unchanged.

¶16

This application stands allowed with the aforesaid modification in the order dated 2.2.2018.

¶17

Let a copy of the pay slip be kept on record.

¶18

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)

¶19

Rakesh/-

Santosh Kumar Ranjan v. Shashi Kiran Ranjan Alias Shashi Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Ranjan v. Shashi Kiran Ranjan Alias Shashi Devi

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

Dinesh Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Amal Jain Alias Amol Jain Alias Amal Kr Jain And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jainendra Kumar And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Govind Mahto Alias Govind Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

S M Tanweer Vs the State of Jharkhand

Farhan Ahmed Vs the State of Jharkhand