Suresh Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.893 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Suresh Sah son of Rudeshwari Sah, Resident of Village- Baratikar, Police Station- Rajoun, District- Banka.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Rudeshwari Sah son of Late Bangali Sah 3.

Smt. Sumitra Devi wife of Rudeshwari Sah 4.

Rakesh Sah son of Rudeshwari Sah, All Residents of Village- Baratikar, Police Station- Rajoun, District- Banka.

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 19-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner, in this case, is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 19th July, 2017 passed in Misc. Case No. 125 of 2014, Trial No. 50 of 2017 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Banka. By the impugned order, learned Principal Judge has been pleased to allow a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month each to O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicants in the learned Family Court are the parents of this petitioner who have been awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- each towards maintenance.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.893 of 2017(2) dt.19-12-2022 2/2 This Court has perused the impugned judgment. Learned Family Court has discussed the entire materials which are available on the record by way of evidence. In this Court, no plausible ground has been raised in course of argument so as to contest the impugned judgment. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the stand of the petitioner in the court below was that he would keep his parents and maintain them.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. This application has not merit. It is dismissed accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U