Patna High CourtCR. REV./707/2015dismissed

Nantun Kumar Singh v. Tulo Kumari

2018-05-07Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.707 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year- Thana- District- Katihar ====================================================== Nantun Kumar Singh S/o Late Chinu Singh Resident of village - Roshna, P.S. Pranpur, District - Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Tulo Kumari W/o Nantur Kumar Singh, D/o Nukul Singh Resident of village - Roshna, P.S. Pranpur ( O.P. Roshna ), District - Katihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-05-2018 The petitioner has challenged the final order dated 31.03.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No. 177 of 2010 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to opposite party from the date of passing of the order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below, even though had framed the question whether the opposite party no. 2 was entitled to maintenance, and if so, for what amount, the court did not answer the aforesaid questions and has, in a general manner, directed for payment of Rs. 2000/- per month to the opposite party.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has categorically answered

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.707 of 2015(8) dt.07-05-2018 2/2 the question and has held that opposite party is the legally married wife of the petitioner. So far as the income of the petitioner is concerned, the court below has taken note of the fact that there is no documentary evidence related to his income, but has fixed the aforesaid quantum of maintenance on the ground of age and the expected income of the petitioner.

This court is also of the view that the amount of maintenance fixed by the court below is not excessive. No good ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for this Court to interfere with the aforesaid final order.

This petition is dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Krishna/- Ved/- U T