Disposed

Binod Barik v. Geeta Alias Hemobati Barik

Jharkhand HC17 Nov 2021Cr.Rev./89/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against a Family Court maintenance order, the High Court held that Rs. 3,000 monthly paid by the petitioner to the wife under bail conditions should be adjusted against the awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000.

What did the court decide?

The Court observed that the Rs. 3,000 monthly payment to the wife should be adjusted against the maintenance amount ordered by the lower court and disposed of the revision.

Binod Barik Vs Geeta Alias Hemobati Barik — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.89 of 2020

Binod Barik

…… Petitioner

Versus

Geeta @ Hemobati Barik …... Opp. Party

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Gouri Debi, Advocate For the O.P. :

¶9

---------

¶10

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.

¶11

---------

¶12

06/Dated: 17th November, 2021

¶13

1. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 22.09.2018, passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Original Maintenance Case No.16 of 2017, whereby the maintenance has been awarded in favour of the wife/ opposite party amounting to Rs.4,000/- (Four thousand) per month from the date of order.

¶14

2. At the very outset, it has been fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist was granted bail by the Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.02.2018, passed in B.A. No.5346 of 2017 on the condition that he will hand-over a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the O.P. No.02, i.e., the wife. The last paragraph of the order dated 07.02.2018 reads as under :-

¶15

“After taking into consideration the above facts, I feel that it will not be proper to keep the petitioner in custody. I therefore allow this application. The provisional bail granted on 21.07.2017 in connection with Mahila, P.S. Case No. 04 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 93 of 2017 is hereby confirmed, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear once a month before the Court where the case is pending and he will hand-over a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month to the O.P. No.2 (wife), failing which the bail granted to him stands cancelled.”

¶16

It has been submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the revisionist is paying Rs.3,000/- per month to his wife, and as such prayer has been made that this amount

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

should be adjusted towards the maintenance amount, as has been ordered by the family court.

¶19

3. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist, the present criminal revision application is hereby, disposed of, observing that the amount of Rs.3,000/-, which is being paid to the wife each month by the revisionist, should be adjusted against the quantum of maintenance amount, as ordered by the court below.

¶20

4. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present criminal revision application stands disposed of.

¶21

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶22

Chandan/-

Binod Barik v. Geeta Alias Hemobati Barik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Barik v. Geeta Alias Hemobati Barik

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

Kulbir Singh Kalra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Pandey And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Parbati Devi Vs Babulal Rai

Mithun Manjhi Alias Mithun Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bikrama Singh Vs Kiran Devi And Anr.