Sandeep Jha @ Sandeep Kumar Jha v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER Mr.Anil Kumar, Advocate Mr.Umeshanand Pandit A.P.P. : : 3 25-02-2023 This criminal revision application has been filed against order dated 03.09.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur in Maintenance Case No. 8 of 2014 whereby the learned Principal Judge has allowed the petition filed by opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,000/- (four thousand) per month to opposite party no. 2, who is wife of the petitioner, as maintenance and also directed to make payment of entire arrear of maintenance allowance within six months in equal installments. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below has failed to appreciate the financial Patna High Court CR. REV. No.355 of 2017(3) dt.25-02-2023 condition/income of the petitioner while fixing the amount of maintenance. It is further submitted that petitioner is suffering from the heart disease and is continuously under treatment of doctor since 2011, but the Court below has presumed the petitioner as healthy person. It is lastly submitted that petitioner has to look after his mother and other family members and as such, he is not in a position to pay such maintenance amount, as fixed by the learned Family Court, to opposite party no. 2. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Court below, after taking into consideration the entire materials, has fixed the amount of maintenance. In this age of high inflation, the maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- (four thousand) per month, as fixed by the learned Court below, cannot be said to be excessive on on higher side. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which requires any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this criminal revision application stands dismissed. anay/- U T (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.