Dismissed¶21

Arun Kewat @ Pappu Kewat v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC6 Feb 2024CR. REV./333/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; Criminal Revision No.333 of 2019; decided 06-02-2024; Bibek Chaudhuri, J; maintenance; Family Court Nalanda; Miscellaneous Case No. 67M of 2014; order dated 26-03-2018; Rs. 5,000/- per month; wife and minor children; Makho Devi; Arun Kewat @ Pappu Kewat; District Nalanda; revision dismissed; no interference with impugned order; petitioner absent at hearing; APP Brajendra Nath Pandey.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision was dismissed with no interference in the impugned Family Court maintenance order. ¶21

Arun Kewat @ Pappu Kewat Vs the State of Bihar and Anr. — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.333 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Nalanda

¶3

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

¶4

ARUN KEWAT @ PAPPU KEWAT Son of Ramdev Kewat R/o villageChandra Bigha, P.S.- Bain, District- Nalanda.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶8

Makho Devi Wife of Arun Kewat @ Pappu Kewat R/o village- Chandra Bigha, P.S.- Bain, District- Nalanda. At Present daughter of Mundrika Kewat, resident of village- Gorma, P.S.- Silao, District- Nalanda

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶13

5 06-02-2024

¶14

On 25^th January, 2024, the instant revision was

¶15

heard in part. On the prayer made on behalf of petitioner to seek certain instruction, the matter was adjourned. However, when the matter is called on today, the petitioner is found absent.

¶16

Learned Advocate for the State of Bihar, opposite party no. 1 is present.

¶17

On perusal of the impugned order, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda in Miscellaneous Case No. 67M of 2014, dated 26^th March, 2018, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 for her and her minor children’s maintenance.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.333 of 2019(5) dt.06-02-2024 2/2

¶19

Considering the amount, this Court is of the view that the amount of maintenance is very meager and the petitioner is under obligation to pay the same. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a young man capable of earning for the maintenance of self, his wife and children.

¶20

Considering such finding, I do not find any reason of interference against the impugned order.

¶21

The instant revision is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶23

pravinkumar/-

¶24

U T

Arun Kewat @ Pappu Kewat v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kewat @ Pappu Kewat v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanu Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Pravendra Bharti Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Kapildev Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Vivek Gupta and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar and Anr.