Dismissed

Soumitra Sinha v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 Aug 2024CR. REV./437/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner husband sought revision against Family Court order granting wife monthly maintenance of Rs 26,000 under Section 125 CrPC. High Court held maintenance quantum was just and proper given husband's salary and wife's lack of proof of income from her medical practice or YouTube channel, dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed as the maintenance order of Rs 26,000 per month was held just and proper.

Soumitra Sinha Vs The State of Bihar — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No 437 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Soumitra Sinha Son Of Prashant Kumar Sinha R/O- Vill- Amarari,P.S.Nawada, Dist.- Bhojpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

Neha Prakash D/o Shiv Prakash Sinha R/o Mohalla - Balua Bazar, P.s. - Motihari Town, Distt. - East Champaran

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Lakshmi Kant Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rajesh Ranjan

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 08-08-2024

¶14

Heard.

¶15

2 This petition has been preferred by the petitionerhusband being aggrieved with the judgment dated 26.05.2022 passed in Maintenance Case No 181 of 2020 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran, Motihari whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr P C submitted by the opposite party-wife and directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 26,000/- to the opposite party-wife from the date of filing of application, i e, 16.10.2020.

¶16

3 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while granting the order of maintenance, the learned Principal

¶17

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.437 of 2022 dt.08-08-2024 2/3

¶18

Judge, Family Court did not consider the fact that the opposite party-wife is degree holder of BDS and regular practitioner. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court also did not consider the fact that she also runs some you tube channel and from this work also, she is getting some income. Without considering the above, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court directed the petitioner to pay the amount of maintenance of Rs 26,000/- to the opposite party-wife which is higher side.

¶19

4 Perusal of the record clearly shows that the opposite party is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and is residing separately. It also appears that the petitioner himself filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce against the opposite party-wife at Bhavnagar. Therefore, considering the above and further considering the materials available on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the opposite party-wife is residing separately with sufficient cause.

¶20

5 With regard to quantum of maintenance, perusal of the record shows that at the time of passing the order, the petitioner was getting monthly salary of Rs 78,437/-. He is a Class I officer in the Railways. Though his parents are dependent on him but the fact remains that his parents are also getting some pension.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.437 of 2022 dt.08-08-2024 3/3

¶22

6 There is also no dispute on the point that the opposite party-wife is a degree holder of BDS. The pleading was made by the petitioner-husband before the Principal Judge Family Court that the opposite party-wife is a practicing doctor and also runs some you tube channel and from both the works, she gets sufficient income. However, before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, the petitioner, for establishing the fact that the opposite party-wife is also earning, has not produced any evidence. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party-wife is a practicing doctor and also earns money from you tube channel.

¶23

7 Considering the monthly income of the petitioner and further considering his liabilities, maintenance amount of Rs 26,000/- appears to be just and proper.

¶24

8 Resultantly, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is dismissed accordingly.

¶25

(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)

¶26

M.E.H. /-

¶27

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	20.08.2024
Transmission Date	20.08.2024

Soumitra Sinha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soumitra Sinha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reyaz Ahmad Vs The State of Bihar

Meena Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Priya Ranjan Kumar @ Priya Ranjan Vs Hemlata Kumari

Naresh Kumar @ Naresh Vs Pritty Srivastava

Pradip Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shiv Balak Rai @ Shiv Balak Ray Vs The State of Bihar