Dismissed

Shanti Ekka v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC12 Oct 2019Cr.Rev./62/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision challenging an interim maintenance order, the High Court held that the awarded amount was not disproportionately high relative to the husband's pension income. The revision was dismissed without interfering with the lower court's judgment.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision No. 62 of 2016 dismissed; judgment dated 31.08.2015 in Original Maintenance Case No. 151 of 2009 affirmed.

Shanti Ekka Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 62 of 2016

¶2

Shanti Ekka, W/o- Iren Isidor Ekka, R/o- Sharma Compound, Netaji Nagar, Kanta Toli, PO & PS, District-Ranchi ... ... Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand

¶4

Iren Ishidor Ekka, S/o- Johan Ekka, C/o- Poonam Aind, resident of Pahan Kocha (Neecha Kocha) Lowadih, PO&PS-Namkum, District-Ranchi ... ... Opposite Parties

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, APP

¶8

¶9

07/12.10.2019 I.A. No. 697 of 2016

¶10

For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, I.A. No. 697 of 2016 filed for condonation of delay of 49 days is allowed.

¶11

Criminal Revision No. 62 of 2016

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved of the judgment dated 31.08.2015 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 151 of 2009 by which her husband has been directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance to her.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner is getting Rs. 25,000/- as pension, whereas the petitioner has to maintain her daughter also and, therefore, maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month is insufficient.

¶14

O.P. No. 2 has not challenged his marriage with the petitioner which was performed on 07.05.1985. From the wedlock three children; one son and two daughters, were born. The petitioner has pleaded that the younger daughter is unmarried and staying with her. However, it is stated that now the younger daughter has also filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance from her father. In the application under section 125 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner, she has not claimed maintenance for her minor daughter. It has also come on record that O.P. No. 2 has contracted a second marriage and, therefore, the petitioner is not staying with her husband.

¶15

-2-

¶16

From the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the petitioner by her husband who is getting Rs. 25,000/- per month as pension cannot be said to be disproportionately adverse to the status of the parties.

¶17

In the above facts, keeping the limitation of the revisional jurisdiction in mind, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment dated 31.08.2015 in Original Maintenance Case No. 151 of 2009 and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 62 of 2016 is dismissed.

¶18

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶19

Tanuj/-

Shanti Ekka v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Ekka 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

Sunil Kumar Singh Alias Sunil Bharti Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sabita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Bikrama Singh Alias Bikram Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Suresh Chandra Runj Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Mukesh Soni Alias Mukesh Kumar Sony Vs Poonam Devi and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Sao Alias Vijay Kumar Shaw Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.