Patna High CourtCR. MISC./13294/2017dismissed

Ranjeet Chaudhary @ Ranjeet Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-05-11Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13294 of 2017 ====================================================== Ranjeet Chaudhary @ Ranjeet Kumar Chaudhary, S/O Narayan Chaudhary, Resident of Mohalla - Sheoganj, P.S. - Dehri-on-Sone, District - Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Suman Sahni, W/O Ranjeet Chaudhary, D/O Balkrishna Chaudhary, Resident of Mohalla - Sheoganj, P.S. - Dehri, District - Rohtas At present resident of Mohalla - Tarbangla, Ward No. 38, P.S. - Dehri, District - Rohtas.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Chaubey Jawahar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 11-05-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner filed this petition for modification of the order dated 08.07.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12976 of 2014 by which provisional anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner on 18.04.2014, was confirmed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1000/- per month, instead of Rs. 750/- per month to his wife.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that wife of the petitioner is ANM Grade-A and she is getting salary of Rs. 37000/- per month and, therefore, it is submitted that she is not entitled to get maintenance. The wife has already filed divorce case but, from perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner is the husband and he was knowing well about the fact that his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13294 of 2017 (3) dt.11-05-2017 2/2 wife was engaged as ANM Grade-A. Even then the petitioner was firstly granted provisional anticipatory bail on payment of Rs. 750/- per month, vide order dated 18.04.2014. The provisional bail was granted to the petitioner was confirmed on 08.07.2015 and the amount of Rs. 750/- was enhanced to Rs. 1000/- but, the petitioner did not raise any objection nor put forth argument, that his wife is not entitled to get any maintenance.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I do not find any reason to modify the order dated 08.07.2015. Accordingly, this modification petition is dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T