Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.1070 of 2014 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar, son of Sri Ramavtar Prasad Verma, resident of Mohalla Priyadarshi Nagar, Near Bhagwat Milan Mandir (Bhagwat Nagar), Police Station Agamkuan, District Patna .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anita Kumari, wife of Manoj Kumar
3. Aditya Kumar, son of Manoj Kumar
4. Tanya, daughter of Manoj Kumar 2-4 are c/o Sanjeet Kumar Verma, resident of Mohalla Shastrinagar, Dharam Kanta Lane3, Police Station Kasim Bazar, District Munger .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shambhu Nath For the State : Mr. Maya Nand Jha (App) For Opposite Parties : Mr. Brajesh Sahay ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-02-2017 Heard learned Counsel parties concerned.
Nearly four years back, by an order, dated 05.02.2013, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger, has allowed monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month in exercise of power under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 and her minor son and minor daughter, in Case No. 68 (Maintenance) of 2009. Out of the said Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- has been allowed for
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1070 of 2014 (6) dt.28-02-2017 2/3 maintenance of Opposite Party No. 2 and Rs. 1,500/- each for Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 (minor son and minor daughter of the petitioner and the Opposite Party No. 2). The said order is being assailed in the present criminal revision application filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act.
Learned Counsel petitioner has submitted that while quantifying the amount of monthly maintenance allowance, the learned Court below has not appreciated the actual monthly income of the petitioner. According to him, his monthly income is Rs. 5,000/- per month.
However, from the impugned order, I find that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence before the learned Court below showing his real income. This is not in dispute that the petitioner has ancestral house in Patna, where he resides with his parents and brothers. The market value of the said building has been assessed to be between 60 and 70 lakhs. In such circumstance, the plea that earning of the petitioner is too meager to pay the private opposite parties even Rs. 5,000/- per month for maintenance, does not appear to be bona fide. I do not find any merit in this application requiring this Court's interference.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1070 of 2014 (6) dt.28-02-2017 3/3 It is observed that the said order was passed nearly four years back. The opposite parties shall be at liberty to apply enhancement of monthly maintenance amount by invoking Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before appropriate forum. This application stands accordingly dismissed. Prabhakar Anand/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) U √ T √