A revision under Section 125 Cr. P.C challenging an order fixing maintenance at Rs. 7,500. The Court held the petitioner failed to adduce evidence regarding his income or unemployment and dismissed the revision, finding the award reasonable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 234 of 2019
Binod Kumar Burnwal ….. Petitioner(s). -V e r s u s- Divyanka Burnwal ….. Opp Party(s).
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate For the State : A.P.P
2/06.12.2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad, in Original Maintenance Case No. 565 of 2017 whereby an amount of Rs. 7,500/- has been assessed and awarded as maintenance to the wife.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount is on a higher side as the petitioner is now out of job. He submits that when the petitioner was under employment he was earning Rs.20,000/- but the court wrongly has assessed the amount as Rs. 30,000/- and has fixed the maintenance accordingly.
From the submission of the petitioner, I find that only dispute is the quantum of maintenance. The marriage is admitted by both the sides.
After going through the records I find that the petitioner has neglected to maintain his wife. The family Judge, Dhanbad has fixed Rs. 7500/- as maintenance which is to be paid by the petitioner to his wife. The petitioner claims that his salary was Rs.20,000/- and not Rs.30,000/- and now he is unemployed. This submission cannot be looked into at this stage because the petitioner did not adduce evidence before the court below either oral or documentary to that effect. It was the claim of the wife that the husband is earning Rs.30,000/- which was considered by the court and accepted and the petitioner did not rebut the said submission by any cogent evidence. Even if the statement of the petitioner is taken to be true that he was earning Rs.20,000/- then also the court below has considered all the aspects and Rs. 7,500/- cannot be said to be excessive. Since the amount is not excessive and there is no illegality or impropriety or error in the order passed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C, I am not inclined to entertain this application. The same is dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Amardeep/cp3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revised order fixing maintenance at Rs.7,500/- against the petitioner was illegal or erroneous given his alleged loss of employment.
Whether the higher quantum of Rs.30,000/- considered by the Lower Court was established by evidence.
Whether the challenge to maintenance awarded is maintainable under Section 125 Cr. P.C when evidence was not adduced below.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Binod Kumar Burnwal
Divyanka Burnwal
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
