Patna High CourtCR. REV./664/2014dismissed

Sudhir Lohar v. Rubi Devi

2017-01-19Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.664 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- JAMUI ===========================================================

1. Sudhir Lohar son of Ambika Lohar , resident of village Sabejor, P.S. Sona , District Jamui .

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Rubi Devi, wife of Sudhir Lohar and daughter of Jainath Vishwakarma , resident of Mohalla Railway Quarter , Jhajha Bihind Railway Middle Sahool ,P.S. Jhajha, District Jamui.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Prakash For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH JUDGMENT AND ORDER ORAL Date: 19-01-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent.

2. By the impugned order, dated 01.05.2014, passed, in Maintenance Case No. 92M of 2011, by the leraned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui, the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the sole respondent. Such amount is to be paid by the 15th day of each successive month.

3. The said order, dated 01.05.2014, is being assailed in the present criminal revision application on the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.664 of 2014 dt.19-01-2017 2/2 ground of the same being excessive.

4. I do not find any reasonable ground available to interfere with the said order. There is no dispute over the relationship between the petitioner and the sole respondent. I do not consider the amount to be excessive.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is every likelihood of the dispute between the petitioner and the sole respondent being resolved amicably.

6. If any development takes place in future, the petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to the provisions of law, as may be permissible to him.

This application is dismissed with the observation, as above.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 19.01.2017 Transmission Date 19.01.2017