Shiv Shankar Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.711 of 2016 =========================================================== Shiv Shankar Singh, Son of Late Raghubir Singh, R/o Vill.-Jurawanpur Karari, P.S.-Jurawanpur, District-Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Asharfi Devi, Wife of Shiv Shankar Singh, D/o Late Ram Bachan Singh, R/o Vill.-Jurawanpur Karari, P.S.-Jurawanpur, District-Vaishali. At present C/o Lautary Singh, R/o Vill.-Chak Dhanauti, P.S.-Industrial Area, Hajipur, DistrictVaishali. .... ..... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ujjwal Kr. Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT & ORDER Date: 31-01-2017 Though the matter has been listed under the heading "For Orders" with certain office notes, pointing out the defects in the present application, the matter has been heard on merit on dictate note after ignoring the defects as pointed out.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The petitioner is an ex-army personnel and is aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 26.05.2015, passed by the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.711 of 2016 dt.31-01-2017 2/3 learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Maintenance Case No. 56 of 2004, whereby, he has allowed payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to opposite party No. 2 from date of the order, since she had received ad-interim maintenance amount @ Rs. 400/- per month.
4. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted with reference to statement made in paragraph 7 of the present application that the petitioner is getting pension of Rs. 6,200/- per month and is suffering from several diseases, in order to make out a case that the amount, as has been directed to be paid as maintenance amount, is excessive.
5. From the impugned judgment and order, I find that no such plea was taken on behalf of the petitioner before the learned court below. The court below has taken into consideration elaborately the evidence, adduced before it, to establish the income of the petitioner. The petitioner did not disclose his actual income. The learned court below after considering entire facts and circumstance has allowed payment of a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, as maintenance allowance. I do not find any illegality in the judgment and order impugned, requiring interference by this Court nor I find the fixing of maintenance amount to be excessive.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.711 of 2016 dt.31-01-2017 3/3
6. I do not find any merit in this application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Praveen-II/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 02/02/2017 Transmission Date 02/02/2017