Dismissed

Ajay Kumar Singh v. Sushma Surbhi and Ors.

Patna HC29 Jan 2013CR. REV./195/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition was filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay monthly maintenance to his wife and two daughters. The High Court dismissed the revision, finding no illegality in the lower court's conclusion that the gifted land was insufficient for maintenance.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision application filed against the Family Court maintenance order has been dismissed.

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Sushma Surbhi and Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Revision No.195 of 2010

¶3

====================================================== 1. Ajay Kumar Singh S/O Ram Vinesh Singh R/O Vill.- Charo, P.S.Warisnagar, Distt.- Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. Sushma Surbhi ( Wife Of Ajay Kumar Singh, Petitioner ) D/O Ram Sagar Sinha R/O Vill.- House No.- C/4, M.I.T. Colony, P.S.- Brahmpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 2. Ichcha Bharti D/O Sushma Bharti And Ajay Kumar Singh R/O Vill.House No.- C/4, M.I.T. Colony, P.S.- Brahmpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 3. Lucky D/O Sushma Bharti And Ajay Kumar Singh R/O Vill.- House No.- C/4, M.I.T. Colony, P.S.- Brahmpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur

¶6

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Narayan Siunha Shikha Roy Mr. K.N. Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shankar Kishore Shahi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 5 29-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Opposite Parties. This revision application has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 22.8.2009 passed in Maintenance Case

¶7

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.195 of 2010 (5) dt.29-01-2013

¶8

2 / 2

¶9

No. 49/2005 whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month to the Opposite Parties as maintenance in terms of Section 125 Cr. P.C. i.e. to say Rs. 1500/- to the Opposite Party No.1 and Rs. 500/- each to the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already executed a deed of gift of 4 katha 13 dhurs in favour of the opposite party no.1. Inspite of that the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 1500/- towards the maintenance of Opposite Party No.1 and Rs. 500/- each to his two daughters through the impugned Judgement.

¶11

On perusal of the impugned Judgement it appears that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court on taking into account the pleading of parties and facts also about transferring 4 kathas 13 dhurs land in favour of Opposite Party No.1 arrived at conclusion that is not sufficient for maintenance to Opposite Party No. 1 and her two children.

¶12

As such, I find no illegality in the impugned order for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision stands dismissed.

¶13

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

¶14

Sudha/-

Ajay Kumar Singh v. Sushma Surbhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Singh v. Sushma Surbhi and Ors.

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

Natuli Yadav @ Mukesh Yadav minor Vs The State Of Bihar

Anil Yadav Vs State of Bihar and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Mrityunjay Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Jitendra Prasad @ Jitendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs State of Bihar and Anr.