This criminal revision application challenging a maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's award of Rs.5,000 to the wife and Rs.2,000 to the minor daughter.
The criminal revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.485 of 2021
Sudhakar Kumar Thakur …… Petitioner
Versus
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Ganjhu, Advocate For the State : Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, Advocate ---------
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
---------
04/Dated: 03rd November, 2021
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
2. The present revision application has been filed against the order dated 03.01.2020, passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, in Original Maintenance Case No.114 of 2018, whereby the maintenance has been awarded in favour of the wife/ O.P No.02 amounting to Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) per month and Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) per month to the minor daughter/ O.P. No.03 from 03.01.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has only raised the issue regarding the quantum of maintenance amount. The marriage of the revisionist with the O.P No.02 had taken place on 01.07.2017 and out of their wedlock they have been blessed with a daughter in the year 2018. The wife/ O.P No.02 has been harassed and subjected to cruelty due to nonfulfillment of the demand of dowry for which a case under Section 498A of the I.P.C was also lodged. Due to the harassment, the wife left the matrimonial house and filed the maintenance case in the year 2020. On considering the material evidence on record, the court below has found the reasonable reason for residing the wife separately.
Further, so far as the income of the revisionist is
- 2 -
concerned, the court below has assessed the income at around Rs.55,000/- (Fifty five thousand) per month. The court below has observed that the revisionist is a skilled Tiles Mistry and he runs a Men's Parlour. Further, he has income from agricultural sources also and on that basis maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/-, in total, has been awarded, which is just and proper.
4. Considering the quantum of the maintenance amount and the findings recorded by the court below, I do not find any reasonable reason to interfere with the impugned order, accordingly the present criminal revision application is, hereby, dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court requires interference.
Whether the assessment of the petitioner's income and the wife's need justify the awarded amount.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sudhakar Kumar Thakur
The State of Jharkhand
Radhika Kumari
Shristi Kumari
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
