Patna High CourtCR. REV./246/2017dismissed

Krishna Chauhan v. Babita Devi

2023-02-23Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.246 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Krishna Chauhan, Son of Sonapati Chauhan, Resident of Village- Odhpura, P.O.- Kesaori, P.S.- Pakrivrawan, District- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Babita Devi, wife of Krishna Chauhan, resident of Village- Odpura, P.S.- Pakribrawan, District- Nawada, At present Babita Devi, daughter of Chano Chauhan, resident of Village- Jangali Bigha, P.S.- Ariyari, P.O.- Birnawan, District- Sheikhpura.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Niraj Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-02-2023 This criminal revision application has been filed against order dated 24.12.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 129M of 2015 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sheikhpura whereby, the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,500/- per month from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the opposite party (wife of the petitioner) as maintenance allowance.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to a very low income group earning only Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- maximum per month and was always ready to keep the and maintaining his wife with full dignity and honour, in this connection petitioner has also filed

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.246 of 2017(4) dt.23-02-2023 2/2 Matrimonial Case No. 128 of 2011 for restitution of conjugal rights before Family Court, Nawada. He next submits that the opposite party is also earning and is able to maintain herself and her parents are also well off and able to maintain her. I have carefully perused the impugned order. The monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,500/- per month to opposite party (wife of the petitioner) in this age of high inflation cannot be said to be excessive or onerous. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the background of facts which have been mentioned in the impugned order.

I do not find any merit in this application. This criminal revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T