Patna High CourtCR. REV./328/2015dismissed

Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-01-23Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.328 of 2015 =========================================================== Ranjeet Kumar, Son of Deonandan Paswan, resident of Mohalla- Salimpur Ahra, Gali No.2, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sanju Devi, Wife of Ranjeet Kumar, Daughter of Krishna Paswan,

3. Miss Divya Kumari (aged about 13 years)

4. Akash (aged 11 years) Both minor Daughter and Son of petitioner who are under the guardianship of their mother (opposite party no.2). All residents of Mohalla- Ramjichak, Digha, Bataganj, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bauye Jee Jha, For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-01-2018 This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.05.2014 passed in Maintenance Case No. 17 (M) of 2012 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a monthly sum of Rs. 4000/- to respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has submitted that till date not a single penny has been given by the petitioner to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

3. From the perusal of the order dated 16.05.2014, it appears that learned Additional Principal Judge, Family

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.328 of 2015 dt.23-01-2018 2/2 Court has taken into account the deposition of the witnesses and has come to the finding that petitioner is in a position to maintain the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and has financial strength to pay Rs. 4000/- per month to his wife and two children born out of the wedlock.

4. No good reason has been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner to interfere with the order impugned.

5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

6. If the petitioner does not pay the maintenance amount as directed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, to the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, it will be open for opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 to approach the Family Court and seek necessary coercive orders against the petitioner.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Shageer/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 24/01/2018 Transmission Date 24/01/2018