Abhishek Kumar @ Abhinash Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar Vishwakarma v. Ram Kumari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.575 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- East Champaran ====================================================== Abhishek Kumar @ Abhinash Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar Vishwakarma Son of Ram Ganesh Thakur Resident of village and P.O.- Pokharaira, P.S.- Saraiya, Dsitrict- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

Ram Kumari @ Rani Devi Wife of Abhishek Kumar @ Abhinash Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar Vishwakarma, D/o Mankeshwar Thakur Resident of Village- Maikey Phultakiya, P.O. and P.S.- Kesariya, District- East Champaran ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhurendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 24-02-2020 This revision application has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 24.01.2019 passed in Maintenance Case No. 140 of 2017. By the impugned order, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran, Motihari has awarded a maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party who happens to be the wife of this petitioner.

In the maintenance case the wife of this petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an electrician and is in private service from which he is earning a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month and he has got three acres of land also. The opposite party, however, denied the claim of his wife that he had got an

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.575 of 2019(4) dt.24-02-2020 2/2 income of Rs. 60,000/- per month. The learned Principal Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance after taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

This Court is of the considered opinion that in the present day's economic condition and price index of the country a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month is not an excess award of maintenance and in fact the amount is in lower side and will be a mere solace to the wife who has no other source of income. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The application has no merit, it is dismissed. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/ved U T