Md. Kabir v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.9359 of 2017 ====================================================== Md. Kabir Son of Md. Farooque, Resident of Village- Sadhubaili, P.S. Kasba, District Purnea.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bibi Gulshan Wife of Md. Kabir Daughter of Sazzad
3. Aszad Raza Son of Md. Kabir
4. Mehak Bano Both are under the custody and guardianship of their mother Bibi Gullshan And opposite party no. 2 to 4 are Resident of Village- Sudhubaili, P.S. Kasba, District- Purnea. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 12-10-2018 This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 9th December, 2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purenea in Maintenance Case No. 331 of 2014 because by the impugned order the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- to his wife and Rs. 1500/- each to his two children.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the petitioner is working in a cycle repairing shop and sometime he is not earning much as to meet his liability. In the opinion of this Court, now-a-days where even an unskilled labourer is earning at least Rs. 450/- per day, the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9359 of 2017 (2) dt.12-10-2018 2/2 amount awarded to the opposite parties cannot be said to be unreasonable. The petitioner being the husband is under obligation to maintain his wife and his two children with the same dignity with which he is living.
Finding that the amount awarded by the Family Judge is not even sufficient to meet the necessary expenses and it is only a token amount with which some sort of assistance may be rendered to the opposite parties, this Court does not find any merit in the present case. It is dismissed, accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Ved/- U T