Dismissed

Md.Rizwan Akhtar v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC11 Dec 2019Cr.Rev./960/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr. Revision No. 960 of 2008, the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a petition challenging a Family Court order fixing maintenance at Rs. 3,000/month. The Court found no perversity or illegality as the opposite party was given notice, filed a show cause, and produced uncontroverted evidence, despite the petitioner being a student at the material time.

What did the court decide?

No relief was granted; the petition challenging the maintenance order was dismissed and the impugned order of the Family Court was upheld.

Md.Rizwan Akhtar Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 960 of 2008

¶4

Md. Rizwan Akhtar, son of Md. Imran Haidari, Resident of 29/B Ekbalpur Road, 2^nd Floor, P.S. Ekbalpur, Kolkata (West Bengal), permanent r/o Native Village-Goura, P.S. Goura, P.S. Nanpur, District Sitamarhi, Bihar … … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Talat Parveen, wife of Md. Rizwan Akhtar, D/o Junaid Akhtar, Residing at H-150/6, Hudco Lake Town, Telco Colony, P.O. + P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, Dist. East Singhbhum

¶8

… … Opp. Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate For the Opp. Party : None ---

¶12

6/11.12.2019

¶13

Heard Mr. Saurav Kumar Singh and Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶14

No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties.

¶15

This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 01.08.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 77/06 whereby the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand0 per month to the opposite party no. 2.”

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that the impugned order is fit to be set aside on account of the fact that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to file his show cause in the matter. He submits that the petitioner was a student at the relevant point of time and the maintenance which has been fixed by the learned court below i.e. @ Rs. 3,000/- per month is beyond his capacity as the petitioner was unemployed.

¶17

Upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned

¶18

¶19

court below this court finds that the prayer was made claiming maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-. From perusal of the case it further transpires that after notice the opposite party no. 2 appeared before the learned court below and filed his show cause challenging the maintainability of the petition and also denied the averments made in the petition for maintenance. It was admitted fact on record that the applicant and the opposite party were the legally wedded husband and wife. It further transpires from the impugned order that the applicant had produced certain witnesses who were not cross examined by the petitioner and accordingly the evidence which was led by the opposite party remained uncontroverted. It also transpires that the applicant did not lead any evidence before the learned court below. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the order has been passed on the basis of uncontroverted evidences placed before the learned court below and there is no explanation as to why the petitioner did not cross examine the various witnesses produced on behalf of the opposite party. In such view of the matter this court does not find any perversity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order calling for any interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed.

¶20

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶21

Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed as not pressed.

¶22

Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.

¶23

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶24

Binit/

Md.Rizwan Akhtar v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Rizwan Akhtar 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

M/S Pradeep Coke Industries And Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigatio

Dilip Kumar Biswas Vs the Union of India through CBI

Ravi Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laljit Prasad Sinha Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Anti Corruption Bureau Vigilance

Shambhu Nath Gon Alias Shambhu Nath Gan Vs the State of Jharkhand through Acb Vigilance

Udayan Bhattacharya Vs Union of India And Anr.