Preeti Singh And ANR v. Saroj Kumar Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9532 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Preeti Singh wife of Saroj Kumar Singh, Daughter of Vimal Chandra Singh.

2. Akriti (Minor) Daughter of Saroj Kumar Singh, under the guardianship of her mother namely Preeti Singh Both resident of village - Seli Beli, Police Station - Basopatti, District - Madhubani. At present resident of United Paper Board, Kurji, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioners.

Versus

Saroj Kumar Singh son of Late Sabuj Singh Resident of village - Seli Beli, Police Station - Basopatti, District - Madhubani.

.... .... Respondent.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-05-2016 V.Nath, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. By the impugned order the learned court below has allowed the prayer of the petitioners granting them maintenance of an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It appears from the petition filed by the petitioners (Annexure-1) that earlier to the filing of the said petition it has been admitted that the respondent was making a payment of Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner after consent. It also appears that the said amount of Rs.2,000/- per month was being paid from year 2009 up to year 2011.

The learned court below after hearing the parties

Patna High Court CWJC No.9532 of 2014 dt.12-05-2016 and considering the facts and circumstances has allowed Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner. This Court does not find any illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned court below in passing the impugned order. It is well settled that the grant or refusal of maintenance is in the discretion of the court, and nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the discretion exercised by the court below in the present case is perverse or unreasonable. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (V. Nath, J) Nitesh/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE No Uploading Date 18.06.2016 Transmission Date No