Pramod Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.593 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Pramod Kumar, Son of Bharat Prasad, Resident of Village- Anandpur, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State of Bihar 2.

Rani Devi, W/o Pramod Kumar, At Present Residing at VillageKolbrampur, P.S.- Darahara, District- Bojpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Parmanand Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-02-2023 This revision application has been filed against order dated 19.04.2017 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara in Maintenance Case No. 148 of 2013 whereby petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) per month from the date of filing the maintenance petition to opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party No. 2 has left the house of the petitioner on her own sweet will and as such, petitioner is not entitled to pay any maintenance allowance. He next submits that in this regard she has also signed the documents in which she herself has admitted that she is leaving the house of the petitioner out of her own

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.593 of 2017(3) dt.28-02-2023 2/2 will.

From perusal of paragraph No. 10 of the impugned order, it is apparent that the aforesaid statement of the petitioner was made but he failed to produce any chit of paper in support of the same and therefore, the Court below disbelieved the statement.

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. The monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) per month from the date of filing the maintenance petition to opposite party No. 2 (wife of the petitioner) in this age of high inflation cannot be said to be excessive or onerous.

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