Patna High CourtCR. REV./1150/2016dismissed

Md. Sarfaraz Khan @ Sanni v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-01-19Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.1150 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- BANKA ===========================================================

1. Md. Sarfaraz Khan @ Sanni son of Md. Sameem Khan resident of Bhikhanpur, Islam Nagar, Police Station- Ishakchak, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Bibi Fatima wife of Md. Sarfaraz Khan @ Sanni, presently residing at D/o Md. Mokhtar resident of Village- Kharhara, Police Station- Barahat, District- Banka. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Pravina Kumari Mr. Shambhu Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Atul Chandra =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH JUDGMENT AND ORDER ORAL Date: 19-01-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. The petitioner is husband of Opposite Party No.

2. By order, dated 25.10.2016, passed, in Misc. Case No. 176 of 2012, by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Banka, he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) to Opposite Party No. 2.

3. The said order is being assailed in the present criminal revision application on few grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the amount is excessive and disproportionate to the earnings of the petitioner. It is submitted by learned

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1150 of 2016 dt.19-01-2017 2/2 counsel for the petitioner, referring to the impugned order, that there is no finding regarding actual income of the petitioner. It has, secondly, been submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 is an educated woman, capable of substantial earning and, in fact, she is also earning.

4. I have perused the impugned order. There is finding recorded by the learned Court below that no evidence was brought on record to show that Opposite Party No. 2 had any regular permanent source of income. It has also come as evidence that the petitioner belongs to a businessman family and he runs a shop with his father.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not consider payment of amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No. 2 as maintenance to be excessive, requiring interference by this Court under Section 125 of the Code.

6. I do not find any merit in this application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 19.01.2017 Transmission Date 19.01.2017