Disposed

Barik Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2020Cr.Rev./694/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision No. 694 of 2016 challenged a Family Court maintenance order based on a subsequent settlement. The court observed that if the parties are complying with the settlement, the revision is no longer necessary; otherwise, the petitioner remains liable under the Family Court order. The petition was disposed of with transmission of the order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner liable for maintenance if not maintaining family; criminal revision disposed of with transmission of order.

Barik Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 694 of 2016

¶2

Barik Ansari, S/o- late Muslim Ansari, R/o-village Bahera Toli, PO-Karge, PS-Mandar, Distt-Ranchi

¶3

... ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Shabnam Arra, W/o- Barik Ansari, D/o- Md. Alam Ansari

¶7

Md. Meraj Ansari, S/o- Barik Ansari, aged about 10 years

¶8

Gulshana Parween, D/o- Barik Ansari age 8 years

¶9

(Opp. Party Nos. 3 and 4 are minors and represented through their mother petitioner no. 2 Shabnam Arra)

¶10

All are R/o- village Kokdoro, PO, PS-Pithoria, Distt-Ranchi

¶11

... ... Opposite Parties

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP For the O.P. Nos.2-4 : Mr. P.K. Deomani, Advocate

¶15

¶16

05/17.01.2020 Mr. S. K. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶17

tenders a copy of the terms of settlement arrived between the parties.

¶18

Taken on record.

¶19

Mr. P.K. Deomani, the learned counsel appears for the

¶20

opposite parties.

¶21

The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 22.02.2016 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 156 of 2010 in which he has been directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to O.P. No. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- each per month to both his children for their maintenance.

¶22

The only ground now taken by the petitioner is that in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties during mediation he is maintaining his wife and minor children and, therefore, he is not liable to pay maintenance as granted by the Family Court to his wife and minor children.

¶23

-2-

¶24

The settlement which is said to have been arrived between the parties is dated 26.03.2018 whereas the order of maintenance was passed on 22.02.2016 and Mr. P. K. Deomani, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the petitioner is not honouring the terms of settlement.

¶25

If at all the petitioner has complied with the terms of settlement which are reduced in writing and signed by the parties on 26.03.2018 and the wife and minor children of the petitioner are residing with him and he is maintaining them properly this criminal revision petition has been rendered infructuous, however, if the petitioner is not maintaining them properly, he is liable to make payment of maintenance to them as ordered by the Family Court.

¶26

With the above observation, Criminal Revision No. 694 of 2016 is disposed of. 9. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.

¶27

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶28

Tanuj/-

Barik Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barik Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Om Prakash Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shambhu Nath Singh Vs Guria Singh

Anjana Kumari And Anr. Vs Sanjay Suman

Narayan Sao Vs Pramod Kumar Missir

Kartar Singh Sardar Alias Kartal Singh Sardar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ramesh Bhuian Alias Bhanjuwa Bhuiyan Alias Panda Vs the State of Jharkhand