Dismissed

Joydev Ghoshal v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC20 Nov 2021Cr.Rev./1326/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court examined the quantum of maintenance awarded to a wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court rejected the argument that the award was excessive and dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision application was dismissed, maintaining the lower court's maintenance award of Rs. 2,500/- per month.

Joydev Ghoshal Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1326 of 2017

Joydev Ghoshal

…… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Mousmi Sen Gupta …... Opp. Parties

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶9

For the Petitioner : Ms. Nitu Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. K. Jha, A.P.P ---------

¶10

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the party(s) had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶11

---------

¶12

03/Dated: 20th November, 2021

¶13

1. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 19.07.2017, passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.97 of 2015, whereby the maintenance has been awarded in favour of the wife/ O.P. No.02 amounting to Rs.2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred) per month from date of filing of the application.

¶14

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisionist is ready to keep his wife, but he is not ready to pay the maintenance. It has further been submitted that the monthly income of the revisionist has been assessed at Rs.7,000/- per month and out of that Rs.2,500/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to the wife from the date of filing of the application, which is excessive. On that basis the impugned order has been assailed.

¶15

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the maintenance has to be awarded from the date of the application. The other parameters of the impugned judgment are not in dispute save and except the quantum of maintenance.

¶16

4. Perused the impugned order. Considering the quantum of maintenance awarded by the court below, I do not find any reasonable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, accordingly the present criminal revision application is, hereby, dismissed.

¶17

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶18

Chandan/-

Joydev Ghoshal v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joydev Ghoshal 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

Indrajeet Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand

Kumar Shailendra Amb Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Gurung Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Uttam Kumar Mitra Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.