Revision against Family Court order granting Rs.1,000/month maintenance to wife and four minor children. Court noted wife has no income, petitioner admitted earning potential and land ownership, and earlier compromise lacked specific maintenance arrangement. Held revision devoid of merit and dismissed.
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.11 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year- Thana- District- Samastipur
======================================================
Arvind Sah @ Arvind Sahu S/o Late Siyaram Sah resident of village - Kankarghat, P.S. - Hathuri Shivaji Nagar O.P., District - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suneil Kumar Thakur For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mr. Prashant Sinha, Adv Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Satya Prakash, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
4 29-01-2019
This revision application is directed against order dated 5.11.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No.9/2012 Reg. No.171 of 2014 by which the learned Family Court, Samastipur has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- as maintenance to the O.P. no.1 and Rs.1,000/- each to O.P. nos. 2 to 5 from the date of application.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.11 of 2016(4) dt.29-01-2019 2/5
ACJM, Rosera and started living with her three minor daughters at her Naihar. It is also stated that earlier she had filed maintenance case being no. No.38 of 2009. After issuing notice in this case, he appeared and filed affidavit to keep her and in this regard, both parties filed affidavit and on pursuant to affidavit, Maintenance Petition No.38/09 was disposed of.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.11 of 2016(4) dt.29-01-2019 3/5
behalf of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.11 of 2016(4) dt.29-01-2019 4/5
before the Family Court.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.11 of 2016(4) dt.29-01-2019 5/5
of the compromise made between the parties for maintenance does not appear to be belieavable as sale deed was executed in favour of O.P.no.5 being heir also of the petitioner and no arrangement has been made for maintenance of O.P.nos. 1 to 5. It further appears that the petitioner in his evidence has admitted that he has 2 bighas of land and the case of the O.P.no.1 is that petitioner has earning of Rs.50,000/- per month from agriculture income and apart from that there is other income also, no doubt no chit of paper is being produced by opposite parties in support of income of petitioner but he has himself admitted that he has two bighas of land as such he has sufficient means to maintain O.P.nos. 1 to 5.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)
chn/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's order directing maintenance payments is illegal and unsustainable in view of the earlier compromise or alleged remarriage of the wife.
Whether the sum of Rs.1,000/- for each wife and child determined by the Family Court is excessive.
Arvind Sah @ Arvind Sahu
Sanju Devi
Preeti Kumari
Princi Kumari
Smita Kumari
Birju Kumar
Vinod Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
