Dismissed

Nehal Ahmad v. Shahin Tarannum

Jharkhand HC2 Nov 2021Cr.Rev./495/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision application challenging the maintenance award made under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court found no reasonable ground to interfere with the lower court's order setting maintenance at Rs.10,000 per month.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision application was dismissed and the impugned order was affirmed. I.A. Nos.7341of 2018 and 11173 of 2019 were disposed of.

Nehal Ahmad Vs Shahin Tarannum — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.495 of 2017 With

¶3

I.A. No.7341 of 2018 With I.A. No.11173 of 2019

Nehal Ahmad

…… Petitioner

Versus

Shahin Tarannum

…... Opp. Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Shafique Rahman, Advocate For the O.P. : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ---------

¶11

07/Dated: 02nd November, 2021

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶13

2. The present revision application has been filed against the order dated 18.02.2017, passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in Miscellaneous Case No.115 of 2015, whereby the maintenance has been awarded in favour of wife/ O.P. amounting to Rs.4,000/- (four thousand) per month and Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) each per month to the minor son and daughter from the month of December, 2015.

¶14

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 had taken place in the year 2008 and out of their wedlock they have been blessed with a son in the year 2009 and with a daughter in the year 2011. The wife/ O.P had alleged the harassment in the year 2014 for which a case was lodged with the Telco Police Station. Thereafter, in the year 2015 the wife had filed the maintenance case. On considering the material evidence on record, the court below has found the reasonable reason for residing the wife separately.

¶15

Further, so far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the court below has assessed the income at

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

around Rs.35,000/- (Thirty five thousand) per month as he is a tailor and having a tailoring shop and on that basis maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/-, in total, has been awarded.

¶18

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.

¶19

5. I.A. Nos.7341of 2018 and 11173 of 2019 stand disposed of.

¶20

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶21

Chandan/-

Nehal Ahmad v. Shahin Tarannum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nehal Ahmad v. Shahin Tarannum

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

Bhola Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anshu Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gajendra Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tribhuwan Rai Alias Tribhuwan Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Angad Kumar Yadav Alias Angad Kumar Alias Angad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amrit Munda Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.