Ramesh Sah v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.1264 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Ramesh Sah, son of Lakhi Sah, resident of village - Lohigara, P.S. - Manjhagarh, District - Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Patasi Devi, wife of Ramesh Sah, daughter of Bindeshwari Sah, resident of village - Lohijara, P.S. - Manjhagarh, District - Gopalganj. At present resident of village - Pipara, P.S. - Manjhagarh, District - Gopalganj.

... ... Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 28-11-2022 No one appears for the petitioner.

In Criminal Revision No. 1233 of 2016, this Court has recorded as to how in the revision matters of the year 2016 which are related to the maintenance of neglected women and children, in 80 - 90% cases the Lawyers are not appearing and this Court has no assistance. This Court has noticed that under such circumstances instead of simply dismissing the revision application for default leaving room for petitioner to file restoration application after some time and then get it restored and in this manner prolong the hearing of the case, it would only be just and proper to go through the materials available on the record and dispose it of on it's own merit.

Proceeding on the same line, this Court has

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1264 of 2016(3) dt.28-11-2022 2/2 considered this revision application.

Petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment/order dated 12.07.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj in Maintenance Case No. 97 of 2005. By the impugned order the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 2000/- per month to Rs. 4000/- per month payable to the Opposite Party No. 2 and her daughter. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that earlier vide order dated 24.04.2011 the learned Family Court had allowed maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- per month effective from 01.03.2011. The applicant-wife filed an application seeking enhancement of the amount and on the said application, considering the increase in the price of the essential commodity, learned Principal Judge, Family Court has enhanced the amount to Rs. 4000/- with effect from 01.03.2016. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of enhancement, even otherwise the petitioner is not taking interest in pursuing this revision application. It is dismissed accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) ishika/rajeevU