Manoj Kumar Yadav @ Manoj Yadav v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.341 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Manoj Kumar Yadav @ Manoj Yadav, Son of Umashankar Yadav, Resident of village- Nadauli, P.S. Garwar, District- Baliya U.P.. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
State of Bihar 2.
Dhanmuni Devi, Wife of Manoj Kumar Yadav, Resident of VillageNadhauli P.S. Garwar, District- Baliya U.P. At Present- Daughter of Kariman Yadav Resident of Village- Parnahi Tawkal Raike Dera P.S. Simri Dist.- Buxar Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-02-2023 This criminal revision application has been filed against order dated 02.02.2017 passed in Maintenance Case No. 90(M) of 2010 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Buxar whereby, the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 (wife of the petitioner) as maintenance allowance.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner works as a Compounder in Border Roads Organisation and he is earning only Rs. 10,000/- per month and is earning not so much as to pay the monthly maintenance allowance so fixed by the Court below.
Perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.341 of 2017(2) dt.24-02-2023 2/2 petitioner is an Army Personnel in the Indian Army and is getting more than Rs. 25,000/- per month as salary. I have carefully perused the impugned order. The monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party No. 2 (wife of the petitioner) in this age of high inflation cannot be said to be excessive or onerous. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the background of facts which have been mentioned in the impugned order.
I do not find any merit in this application. This criminal revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T