Hari Shankar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.156 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Samastipur ====================================================== Hari Shankar Sharma Son of Jagdhish Sharma Resident of Village- Singtam Nagar Panchayat, Chisopani Near manpari Bridge Singtam Forest Block, P.S.- Singtam East Sikkim, District- Gangtok, State- Sikkim. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rajni Rani Wife of Sri Hari Shankar Sharma, Daughter of Dinesh Prasad Sharma Resident of Village- Supaul, P.S.- Patori, District- Samastipur. ... ... Opposite Partys ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :

Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 21-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned APP for the State.

In view of the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by this Court, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samstipur has submitted a report as contained in letter no.245 dated 05.12.2022. A perusal thereof would show that the petitioner is not paying the maintenance amount to the applicant-wife. The report says that earlier on 20.03.2021 the petitioner had made payment of Rs.5,000/- and thereafter on 18.04.2022 he has made payment of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.5,000/- only to his wife. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.156 of 2020(4) dt.21-12-2022 2/3 petitioner is employed in one Tapasya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. in Sikkim on annual package of Rs.4.8 lacs. In this connection, his salary slip (Ext.-4) has been relied upon by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court has found that the opposite party-petitioner has neither asserted in his show cause nor has adduced any evidence to contradict the stand of the applicant-wife that she happens to be the legally wedded wife of the opposite partypetitioner and that she has no means and income to maintain herself and her minor daughter. The opposite party has himself admitted that he is having a private job as engineer in a company at Bombay, thus, the learned Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs.

6000/- to minor daughter who is school going girl and a sum of Rs.5000/- to the applicant-wife. Earlier while passing the order dated 23.11.2022, this Court had called upon the petitioner to submit his reply as to why the impugned judgment if sustains the test in revision be not made applicable with effect from the date of the institution of the maintenance case in the learned Family Court. Since there is no reply on the said point and this Court finds that in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Ors.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.156 of 2020(4) dt.21-12-2022 3/3 institution of the application, this Court has no hesitation in recording that the impugned judgment needs no interference rather the amount of maintenance awarded to the applicant-wife and her minor daughter be made applicable from the date of institution of the application. Accordingly, the petitioner would be liable to pay the maintenance from the date of institution of the Maintenance Case No.124/2017. This Court finds no illegality and infirmity with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.

Let the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur enforce the impugned judgment.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T