Dismissed

Dilip Sahani v. Sunita Devi

Patna HC3 Feb 2023CR. REV./1121/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision challenging a maintenance order, the Patna High Court dismissed the petition, holding there was no ground to interfere with the Family Court's order. The Court directed the Family Court to recover accumulated arrears and litigation costs from the non-paying petitioner within one month.

What did the court decide?

Family Court directed to recover entire maintenance arrears and Rs. 10,000 litigation cost from petitioner within one month.

Dilip Sahani Vs Sunita Devi — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.1121 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Dilip Sahani S/o Ganaur Sahni R/o Village- Songar, P.S.- Tajpur, DisttSamastipur.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sunita Devi W/o Dilip Sahni R/o Village- Sangar, P.S.- Tajpur, DisttSamastipur, At present R/o village- Dadar, P.S.- Ahiapur, Distt- Muzaffarpur.

¶8

Radha Kumari D/o Dilip Sahni R/o Village- Sangar, P.S.- Tajpur, DisttSamastipur, At present R/o village- Dadar, P.S.- Ahiapur, Distt- Muzaffarpur.

¶9

Sanjit Kumar S/o Dilip Sahni R/o Village- Sangar, P.S.- Tajpur, DisttSamastipur, At present R/o village- Dadar, P.S.- Ahiapur, Distt- Muzaffarpur.

¶10

Anuradha Kumari D/o Dili Sahni R/o Village- Sangar, P.S.- Tajpur, DisttSamastipur, At present R/o village- Dadar, P.S.- Ahiapur, Distt- Muzaffarpur.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Advocate ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 03-02-2023

¶15

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/revisionist.

¶16

The present criminal revision is being preferred having aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement dated 02.08.2014, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur in Maintenance Case No. 70 of 2011, wherein, Opposite Party No.1 (wife) has allowed maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- and Opposite Party No. 2 to 4 has allowed maintenance amount of Rs. 500/- from the date of order.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

¶18

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1121 of 2017(3) dt.03-02-2023 2/3

¶19

during the course of hearing, took a shelter of letter dated 06.09.2011 (Annexure-1) of present criminal revision, which is a report of S.P. Samastipur, stating thereof that O.P. Party-1 is a lady of easy virtue and she solemnized another marriage in the life time of petitioner, without dissolving the marriage with petitioner under due process of law. It further appears from the said report that opposite party deserted this petitioner and presently she is living in association of certain group of criminals. It appears that the said plea was also taken by the petitioner during the course of trial which appears from Para-6 of impugned judgment. It appears that having all opportunities to cross, petitioner did not cross examine the opposite party, on this point. Certainly, petitioner cannot take advantage of his own act of negligence, at this stage.

¶20

Except above, no plea was raised for financial hardship of the petitioner and moreover, it is admitted that O.P. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are son and daughters of the petitioner, where marriage with opposite party No. 1 is also admitted.

¶21

Considering the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the present impugned order allowing maintenance of 2500/- to O.P. No.1 and Rs. 500/- each to O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 which is appearing also the meager amount.

¶22

It is admitted position that no maintenance amount

¶23

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1121 of 2017(3) dt.03-02-2023 3/3

¶24

was ever paid by this petitioner/revisionist, in furtherance of the impugned judgment, where, only a meager amount of Rs. 2,500/and Rs. 500/- per month, allowed as monthly maintenance, to opposite parties.

¶25

Since the petitioner has not paid a single farthing to the opposite party for all 06 (six) years in the name of pending litigation, accordingly, this Court directs the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur to recover the entire arrears of maintenance in terms of impugned order with a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- from the petitioner by taking all such actions which are permissible within frame of law within one month from the date of present order, and make it available to opposite parties. Any amount paid earlier shall be adjusted accordingly.

¶26

Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition stands dismissed at admission stage itself.

¶27

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶28

R.S.Sen/-

¶29

U T

Dilip Sahani v. Sunita Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Sahani v. Sunita Devi

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

Saroj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Kumar Vs The state of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar,Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road

Marhi Bind Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Mohmmad Afridi Vs The State of Bihar

Rajeev Kumar @ Bholu Vs The State of Bihar

Ritik Kumar @ Ritik Raushan Vs The State of Bihar