Dismissed

Dhiraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC5 Aug 2024CR. REV./482/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A husband challenged a Family Court order granting his wife Rs.7,000 monthly maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming an ex-parte decision and inadequate income. The High Court found he had voluntarily ceased participation, evidence was unrebutted, and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the revision application condoned via I.A. No.01 of 2024; revision petition itself dismissed with no relief to petitioner.

Dhiraj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.482 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Dhiraj Kumar Son of Late Jay Krishna Singh R/O Vill.- Cheriyabariarpur, P.S.- Cheriyabariarpur, Dist.- Begusarai

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar Bihar

¶8

Kundan Kumari D/O Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh R/O Vill.-Rahua, P.S.Sahebpur Kamal, Dist.- Begusarai

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dinesh Maharaj For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 05-08-2024

¶12

I.A. No. 01 of 2024

¶13

The interlocutory application has been filed for

¶14

condonation of delay in filing revision application, which is barred by one year sixty three days.

¶15

Heard.

¶16

For the reasons stated in the application delay in

¶17

filing the revision application is condoned.

¶18

Accordingly, Interlocutory Application stands

¶19

allowed.

¶20

Criminal Revision No. 482 of 2024

¶21

Heard on admission.

¶22

This revision petition has been preferred by the

¶23

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.482 of 2024(3) dt.05-08-2024 2/4

¶24

petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by Principal Judge Family Court Begusarai in maintenance case no. 116 of 2018 whereby, the Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. filed by O.P. and directed the petitioner to pay the O.P. a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- from the date of submission of maintenance application that is 26.11.2018.

¶25

Heard counsel of the petitioner.

¶26

It is submitted by counsel of the petitioner that impugned order has been passed by the Family Court against the petitioner as an Ex-parte order and reasonable opportunity of hearing has not been provided by the Family Court to the petitioner therefore, he was unable to crossexamine the witness of O.P. and also unable to produce his evidence. He further submits that petitioner is a labour and earns a monthly income of Rs. 7,000/- only. Therefore, the maintenance amount that is Rs. 7,000/- as ordered by the Family Court is in higher side.

¶27

On perusal of the impugned order it clearly shows that after service of notice, petitioner appeared

¶28

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.482 of 2024(3) dt.05-08-2024 3/4

¶29

before the Family Court on 10.02.2020 and also filed his written statement. After recording the examination-in-chief of the O.P. wife and after passing of interim maintenance order he choose not to further participate in the maintenance proceeding. Therefore, the learned Family Court recorded Ex-parte evidence of the O.P. wife and passed the impugned order. Thus, the contention made by the counsel that reasonable opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioner is not acceptable.

¶30

Perusal of the impugned order further shows that on the basis of unrebutted statement of the O.P. wife the Family Court arrived on the conclusion that she is residing separately with sufficient cause and the petitioner got himself re-married with one Ruchi Kumari. The above finding recorded by the Family Court is based upon the evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

¶31

With regard the quantum of maintenance is concerned, though it was the pleading of the petitioner before the Family Court that he is a labour earning monthly income of Rs. 6,000 to 7,000/- only. But for establishing

¶32

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.482 of 2024(3) dt.05-08-2024 4/4

¶33

this fact the petitioner himself neither produced any evidence nor recorded his statement before the Family Court.

¶34

Undisputedly, the petitioner is aged about 42 years. There is no evidence oral or documentary available on record which shows that due to any physical or mental illness he is unable to earn anything. Since he is a healthy person aged about 42 years and a labour therefore, the amount of maintenance i.e. Rs. 7,000/- appears to be just and proper. I do not find any merit.

¶35

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶36

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J)

¶37

krishnakant/-

¶38

Dhiraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhiraj Kumar 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

Raushan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Vachan Dash Vs the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Police Department, Government of Bihar

Puniya Devi Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ajay Bihari Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Mustaquim Alam @ Md. Mustaquim Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Noor Alam Vs Raushan Khatoon