The revision was dismissed by the Family Court's maintenance order for Rs. 2,000 being upheld. The court directed the trial court to ensure compliance.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.372 of 2013
=========================================================== Bharat Choudhary, son of late Rajendra Choudhary, resident of village - Kumarganj, P.S. - Kishunpur, Dist. - Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Geeta Devi, D/O Sri Kailu Choudhary, Resident Of Mohallah - Malhani, P.O. - Sukhpur, P.S. - Supaul, Dist. - Supaul. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tuntun Kumar, Adv. For the State : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-01-2016
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.
The Petitioner seeks revision of the order dated 9.2.2010 by which the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa, has allowed maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 2 in Misc. Case No. 8 of 1997.
Having gone through the records of the case, I find no merit in the application.
The application stands dismissed.
The Trial Court is directed to ensure compliance of its
order and take stringent steps against the Petitioner, if he refuses to abide by the same.
(Anjana Prakash, J)
S.Ali/-
U T
Bharat Choudhary
The State of Bihar
Geeta Devi
Anjana Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
