Dismissed¶33

Ajit Kumar Singh v. Indu Devi and Anr.

Patna HC8 Apr 2024CR. REV./1336/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance quantum revision dismissed; notional income assessment at Rs. 12,000 p.m. on Minimum Wages Act basis where no income proof filed (Anju Garg Vrs. Deepak Kumar Garg, AIR online 2022 SC 306, relied on; Kamal, 2024:AHC-LKO:7461, Allahabad HC, referred); Family Court Aurangabad Misc. Case No. 4 of 2016 order dated 23.08.2018 (Rs. 4,500/- p.m. for wife Indu Devi and minor daughter Jiya Kumari) affirmed; petitioner pleaded financial hardship/Rs. 7,100 p.m. private-firm income; petitioner unrepresented at hearing; Patna High Court CR. REV. No. 1336 of 2018, decided 08-04-2024; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the Family Court direction to pay maintenance of Rs. 4500/- per month for the wife and the minor daughter stands affirmed. ¶33

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs Indu Devi and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the Family Court direction to pay maintenance of Rs. 4500/- per month for the wife and the minor daughter stands affirmed.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the quantum of maintenance of Rs. 4500/- per month fixed by the Family Court for the wife and the minor daughter is improper, the revision having been preferred on the ground of the petitioner's financial hardship. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The maintenance of Rs. 4500/- per month directed for the wife and the minor child is absolutely proper, being almost one-third of the petitioner's notional monthly income of Rs. 12,000/-.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Since indisputably neither party filed any document showing the petitioner's income, this Court, acting on the principle recited in Anju Garg (income of the husband may be assessed on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act where no income documents are produced), held the petitioner's monthly income notionally at Rs. 12,000/-.

¶28

Key takeaways

No illegality or impropriety was found in the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2016 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad; the impugned order was affirmed and the criminal revision dismissed.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 1336 of 2018, Patna High Court (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.), decided 08-04-2024 — Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. — Quantum. The revision, in which the petitioner was unrepresented at hearing, challenged the order dated 23rd August, 2018 of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad (Misc. Case No. 4 of 2016) fixing maintenance at Rs. 4500/- per month for the wife-respondent Indu Devi and the minor daughter Jiya Kumari, pleading the petitioner's financial hardship; the record shows a pleaded private-firm income of Rs. 7100/- per month and a reference to a coal-selling business and truck ownership, but indisputably no income document was filed by either side and the wife has no source of income. Reciting the Supreme Court principle in Anju Garg Vrs. Deepak Kumar Garg (AIR online 2022 SC 306) that, where parties fail to produce documents of the husband's income, such income may be assessed on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act — a principle noted as subsequently relied on by the Allahabad High Court in Kamal Vrs. State of U.P. ((2024:AHC-LKO:7461)) — this Court held the petitioner's monthly income notionally at Rs. 12,000/-, found the awarded maintenance (almost 1/3 thereof) absolutely proper, detected no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, affirmed it and dismissed the revision. NAFR.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.1336 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Ajit Kumar Singh son of Late Ram Shrest Singh, resident of Village- Soniawa Police Station- Dulhin Bazar District Patna, at present resident of Tangra Toli, Bank Colony, P.S. Booty More, Near Maxpol Factory, Buti, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

Indu Devi and Anr wife of Ajit Kumar Singh Daughter of Shambhu Singh, resident of Village- Uchausi, Police Station- Madanpur, DistrictAurangabad.

¶8

Jiya Kumari Daughter of Ajit Kumar Singh under the guardianship of her natural guardian i.e. mother namely Indu resident of Village- Uchausi, Police Station- Madanpur, District- Aurangabad.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pramendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 08-04-2024

¶14

The instant revision is directed against an order dated 23^rd August, 2018, passed in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2016, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Aurangabad.

¶15

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Advocate for the petitioner was absent. The petitioner was not represented in spite of repeated call.

¶16

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1336 of 2018 dt.08-04-2024 2/4

¶17

The learned Advocate for the opposite party is

¶18

present.

¶19

I have heard the learned Advocate for the opposite party. I have also perused the impugned order as well as other materials on record.

¶20

The learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Aurnangabad while disposing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 4500/- per month for the opposite party and the minor daughter of the parties.

¶21

The petitioner has challenged the quantum of maintenance in the instant revision on the ground of his financial hardship.

¶22

It is contended by the petitioner in the trial court as opposite party that he works in a Private Firm and earns Rs. 7100/per month.

¶23

On the other hand, the petitioner states that he has a business of selling coal. He is also owner of a truck and he has substantial income to maintain his wife and minor child.

¶24

The trial court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4500/- per month. Indisputably, the parties did not file any document before the trial court showing the income of the

¶25

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1336 of 2018 dt.08-04-2024 3/4

¶26

petitioner. It is not in dispute that the opposite party/wife has no source of income. She is dependent upon her paternal home.

¶27

It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anju Garg Vrs. Deepak Kumar Garg, reported in AIR online 2022 SC 306 that where the parties failed to produce any document with regard to income of the husband, such income of the husband may be assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages Act. The same principle is subsequently relied on by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Kamal Vrs. State of U.P. Through Secy. Home, Lko And Another (2024:AHC-LKO:7461) , being the Criminal Revision No. 461 of 2023, delivered on 25^th January, 2024.

¶28

In view of such circumstances, I have no other alternative but to hold monthly income of the petitioner to Rs. 12,000/- notionally.

¶29

Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 4500/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and the minor child. The amount of maintenance is absolutely thus proper and almost 1/3 of the notional income of the petitioner.

¶30

Therefore, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated 23^rd August, 2018, passed in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2016, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad.

¶31

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1336 of 2018 dt.08-04-2024 4/4

¶32

The impugned order is affirmed. The instant criminal

¶33

revision is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶35

pravinkumar/-

¶36

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date

Ajit Kumar Singh v. Indu Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Kumar Singh v. Indu Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhasis Gayen Vs the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Deptt., Old Secretariat, PATNA-1

Anshu Devi Vs The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

Prinsu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar

Babloo Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Vs Amrita Kumari

Alok Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar