Patna High CourtCR. REV./1183/2016dismissed

Rabindra Pandey @ Ravindra Pandey v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-05-09Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.1183 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Rabindra Pandey @ Ravindra Pandey Son of Jitan Pandey, Resident of village - Mukandpur, P.S. Charpokhari, District - Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Suman Devi, Wife of Ravindra Pandey, Resident of village - Mukandpur, P.S. Charpokhari, District - Bhojpur at present daughter of Shambhu Kumar Pandey, village + POst - Balua, P.S. Krishnagarh, District - Bhojpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Nagendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-05-2017 By impugned order, dated 26.07.2016, passed in Maintenance Case No. 213 of 2008, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara has allowed monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 10,000/- under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintaining opposite party no. 2 and their two minor children. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been directed to be paid by the petitioner to opposite party no. 2 as litigation cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not have sufficient income to part with a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month, for maintaining his wife and two minor children and on that ground, he seeks interference in the impugned order.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1183 of 2016 (3) dt.09-05-2017 2/2 In response to a query, made by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner possesses an MBA degree received from a private institution and he is working in Calcutta.

By no stretch of imagination, the amount, fixed by the court below @ Rs. 10,000/- per month, for maintenance of opposite party no. 2 and two minor children, born out of wedlock between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2, cannot be said to be on the higher side, requiring interference. The application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Rakhi U T