Patna High CourtCR. REV./315/2018dismissed

Dina Nath Mandal v. Rekha Devi And ANR

2019-11-18Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 315 of 2018 Arising Out of PS Case No.- Year- Thana- District- ====================================================== Dina Nath Mandal Son of Dashrath Mandal Resident of Purani Sahibganj, Naya Tola, Police Station and District-Sahibganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Rekha Devi, wife of Dina Nath Mandal, Daughter of Ganesh Mandal. 2.

Neha Kumari (Minor), Daughter of Dina Nath Mandal Under the Guardianship of Her Mother namely Rekha Devi (OP No.1) OP No. 1 & 2 resident of Village Trivitta, Post-Mahuwar, Police Station-Manihari, DistrictKatihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Radha Mohan Pathak, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Md. Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-11-2019 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have assisted the Court.

2. On 05.11.2019, on prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, for seeking further instructions, the matter was adjourned. Today, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that on the last occasition he had informed the Court that the petitioner had married another lady without divorcing the opposite party no. 1, who is the wife, on which time was taken by learned counsel for the petitioner to seek instructions.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.315 of 2018 dt.18-11-2019 2/2

3. The petitioner has moved the Court against the order dated 25.03.2017 passed in Maintenance Case No. 914 of 2014, by which the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar has awarded Rs. 6,000/- per month maintenance in favour of the opposite parties.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has taken the Court through the order impugned and other materials on record. He submitted that the order is most reasonable and requires no interference, both on the point of law as well as on the point of quantum.

5. Having considered the aforesaid, the Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the opposite parties.

6. Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference.

7. In view thereof, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T