Patna High CourtCR. REV./620/2014dismissed

Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-12-07Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.620 of 2014 ===================================== Mukesh Kumar Yadav, son of Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav, Resident of village- Jasat, P.S.- Dhamoul, District- Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Kavita Devi, wife of Mukesh Kumar Yadav, Resident of village- Jasat, P.S.- Dhamoul, District- Nawada, at present resident of village- Daulatpur, P.S. Jamui, District- Jamui. .... .... Respondent/s ===================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arun Kumar (App) ===================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-12-2016 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is the husband of opposite party No. 2. He is aggrieved by an order, dated 21.06.2014, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui, in Maintenance Case No 99M of 2012, whereby, he has allowed maintenance allowance of a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month, payable by the petitioner, to opposite party No. 2, in exercise of power under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.620 of 2014 (3) dt.07-12-2016 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to keep opposite party No. 2 with full love and dignity and proper care. He has also submitted that the petitioner has, in fact, filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights vide Matrimonial Case No. 164 of 2013. It has also been submitted by him that petitioner is not in a position to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the applicant, considering his poor background. However, considering the amount of maintenance granted by the learned court below, I do not find it to be excessive particularly when opposite party No. 2 has no other source of income.

I do not find any merit in this application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

It is observed that the petitioner may make attempts for restoration of matrimonial relationship and if the same is restored, the petitioner will have liberty to apply for modification of the order before this Court.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Praveen-II/- U T