Husband challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs. 3,000 per month maintenance to his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court held the maintenance amount was justified given present-day prices and found no merit in the revision, dismissing it while leaving him free to seek modification under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.858 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-
======================================================
Raj Kumar Gupta S/o Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, R/o Amra Talab Near Petrol Pump, Kavandiya, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate Ms. Tetara Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Smt. Sahin Begam, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER
11 05-02-2024 The instant Revision is directed against an order
dated 13th September of 2017, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtas at Sasaram in Maintenance Case No. 107 of 2011 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- in favour of the opposite party no.2 /wife herein.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.858 of 2018(11) dt.05-02-2024 2/3
fled away from her matrimonial home took shelter at her paternal home and never return. The petitioner made several endeavour to bring her back but she refused to stay with the petitioner at her matrimonial home.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.858 of 2018(11) dt.05-02-2024 3/3
with material irregularity in entertaining the application filed by the petitioner on 28th August, 2018 by passing an order dated 26th February, 2019. Therefore, the present petitioner cannot claim any advantage of the said order saying that in spite of the order dated 26th February, 2019, the opposite party did not appear before the trial court.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's order granting Rs. 3,000 monthly maintenance to the wife was justified.
Whether the trial court acted illegally in entertaining a post-disposal application for paternity examination.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumar Gupta
State Of Bihar
Awantika Devi
Bibek Chaudhuri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
