Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.500 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Jamui ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Son of Om Prakash Saw Resident of Village- Pakribaraman (Warsaliganj), Near Devi Temple, P.O. And P.S.- Pakribaraman, DistrictNawada. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Nitu Kumari D/o Biranchi Sao, Resident of Village And P.O.- Mirjaganj, P.S.- Sikandra, District- Jamui.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Ms. Anisha Sinha, Advocate, AUIN- 102836 Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the OP No. 2 :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-08-2025 The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui in Maintenance Case No. 47(m) of 2018, whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner-husband to pay an amount of Rs. 7000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per month to the wife / OP No. 2 herein towards her maintenance since the date of filing of the maintenance petition, i.e., 22.03.2018.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has only

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.500 of 2022(11) dt.04-08-2025 2/3 grievance regarding quantum of maintenance. She submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the maintenance is on the higher side.

4. However, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the quantum of maintenance is as per the source of income of the petitioner who is having a flour mill, an oil expeller machine and a paddy demising machine having income of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) per month.

5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all the aforesaid properties are joint family properties, consisting of petitioner, his parents and one younger brother.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the quantum of maintenance appears to be on the higher side, and hence, payment of Rs. 5,300/- (Rupees five thousand and three hundred only) per month to the opposite party no. 2, namely, Nitu Kumari towards her maintenance would meet the ends of justice.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is modified to this extent and the quantum of maintenance would be Rs. 5,300/- per month. Rest part of the judgment is not

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.500 of 2022(11) dt.04-08-2025 3/3 altered.

8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of.

9. LCR be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith for enforcement of the order as per law. (Jitendra Kumar, J) Shahnawaz/Cha ndanU T