Patna High CourtCR. REV./76/2018dismissed

Md. Nayeemuddin @ Naimuddin @ Md. Naim v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2019-05-02Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.76 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Md. Nayeemuddin @ Naimuddin @ Md. Naim S/o Md. Gaisul @ Gayas Uddin, R/o Village- Diyari, P.O.- Rampur Kudar Katti, P.S. and DistrictAraria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar 2.

Bibi Nargish, W/o Md. Nayeemuddin @ Naimuddin @ Md. Naim & D/o Md. Idris, At present residing at Village- Koshkipur P.S. and District- Araria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Smt. Indu Kumari Srivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By the impugned order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Araria, in Maintenance Case No.71 of 2014, the learned Judge has awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.2,000/- per month for each of the two children. Total Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of judgment.

3. The order has been passed on a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The impugned order reveals that the Court has taken into consideration the reasonable excuse of Opposite Party No.2 to not to be in company of the husband and has also considered that the amount of maintenance decided is

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.76 of 2018 dt.02-05-2019 2/2 minimum requirements of any individual.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a daily wage-earner. After differences with Opposite Party No.2, he has married with another lady which is his liability.

5. The interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month awarded by order dated 27.05.2016 has not been paid by the petitioner uptil now.

6. Considering the fact that amount of Rs.120/- per day is not excessive one as anyone would hardly fulfill his daily requirements including two time food from the aforesaid amount. Hence, there is no merit in this revision application.

7. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 04.05.2019 Transmission Date 04.05.2019