Patna High CourtCR. REV./86/2020dismissed

Vishnu Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-11Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Chandel2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.86 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Vishnu Kumar Sah Son of Ram Dayal Sah Resident of Village- Asgaranpur, P.S.- Sarai, District- Vaishali, at present mohalla- Khoribari Aamlaka, 24 Pargana, P.S.- Bishunpur, District- Kolkata (West Bengal). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Indu Devi W/o Vishnu Kumar Sah, D/o Ram Pravesh Sah Resident of Mohalla- Lakidhai Chandwara, Ananbag Colony, P.S- Town, DistrictMuzaffarpur. 3.

Salu Kumari D/o Vishnu Kumar Sah Resident of Mohalla- Lakidhai Chandwara, Ananbag Colony, P.S- Town, District- Muzaffarpur. 4.

Sweety Kumari D/o Vishnu Kumar Sah Resident of Mohalla- Lakidhai Chandwara, Ananbag Colony, P.S- Town, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Abhay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER 11-07-2024 Heard on admission.

2. This Criminal Revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/husband of OP No.2 being aggrieved with the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Maintenance Case No. 71/2017 whereby the learned Principal Judge while allowing the application filed under section 125 CrPC directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of OP No.2 and Rs. 1500/- each to OP Nos. 2 and 3 total of Rs. 5000/-.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.86 of 2020(4) dt.11-07-2024 2/2

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and other documents annexed with the petition.

4. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Family Court nor did he submit his written statement. The evidence of the Opposite Parties i.e., wife and her children were recorded and an ex parte order has been passed against the petitioner. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is based upon the statements of Respondent/wife and other witnesses including materials available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

5. Accordingly, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the learned Family Court. Therefore, the petition is liable to and is, hereby, dismissed at the admission stage itself.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) perwez U T