Patna High CourtCR. REV./254/2019dismissed

Shailendra Kapri @ Sunil Kapri @ Shailendra Kumar Kapri v. The State Of Bihar

2023-12-12Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.254 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Khagaria ====================================================== SHAILENDRA KAPRI @ SUNIL KAPRI @ SHAILENDRA KUMAR KAPRI Son of Late Yamuna Kapri @ Jamun Kapri, resident of villageMohanpur, Police Station-Kharagpur, District-Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Kumari Ritu Daughter of Late Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Wife of Shailendra Kapri @ Sunil Kapri, resident of village-Usri, Police Station-Gogari, District-Khagaria.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Kumar Roy, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 12-12-2023 The instant revision is directed against an order passed in Maintenance Case No. 08 of 2009, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 11th October, 2018.

2. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the learned trial court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) per month to his wife, opposite party no. 2 herein. However, the petitioner has no financial capacity to pay the said amount.

3. It is also contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that petitioner has no stable source of income. On the other hand, the wife of the petitioner i.e. opposite party no. 2 is an educated lady, running a Coaching Center in her village and

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.254 of 2019(4) dt.12-12-2023 2/2 she earns Rs. 60,000/- per month. However, in support of such claim the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in the trial court.

4. Considering the amount of maintenance awarded to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the said amount is bear minimum to maintain essential amenities of life by a person.

5. Considering such aspect of the matter, I do not find any merit in the instant revision application and accordingly the same is dismissed.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J) pravinkumar/- U T