Patna High CourtCR. REV./99/2014dismissed

Daya Shankar Sah v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-06-09Mr. Justice V.N. Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.99 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- MUZAFFARPUR =========================================================== Daya Shankar Sah, S/o Rajendra Sah, Resident of Village- Rahasi, P.O.- Balthi Rusulpur, P.S.- Bochaha, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rajendra Sah, S/o Janak Sah, Resident of Village- Rahasi, P.O.- Balthi Rusulpur, P.S.- Bochaha, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-06-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. Petitioner son by filing the present Cr. Revision Application has assailed order dated 13.09.2013 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Maintenance Case No. 58 of 2008, whereunder he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.

3,000/- per month to his father as maintenance with effect from 05.07.2008.

Aforesaid order has been passed in the light of the evidence adduced by the applicant father. From the impugned order it appears that none appeared on behalf of the son opposite party to cross-

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.99 of 2014 dt.09-06-2015 2/2 examine the witnesses adduced on behalf of the father. In the light of the findings recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned order, I am not inclined to interfere with the operative portion of the impugned order. In this connection, I may notice the conduct of the son. He has chosen not even to pay the reduced maintenance amount in the light of the interim order of this Court dated 16.10.2014 passed in Cr. Revision No. 29 of 2014. He only appears to be interested in litigating on the plea that father is sympathetic towards his other brother to whom he has given the entire property. Such contention was never raised in the court below.

3. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to consider the same. The Cr. Revision Application is dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- which should be realized from the petitioner by resorting to coercive measures in accordance with law.

(V.N. Sinha, J) P.K.P.

U T