Patna High CourtCR. REV./121/2015dismissed

Saroj Kumar Das @ Guddu Das v. Lalita Devi And ORS.

2017-03-06Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.121 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Saroj Kumar Das @ Guddu Das son of Uttam Das Resident of villageChaita Tola Lalji, P.S.- Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Lalita Devi wife of Saroj Kumar Das @ Guddu Das and Daughter of Moti Das

2. Khushbu Kumari Daughter of Saroj Kumar Das

3. Arjun Kumar son of Saroj Kumar Das

4. Suman Kumar son of Saroj Kumar Das, All resident of Village- Mordiva, P.S. Muffasil District Samastipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-03-2017 The petitioner is husband of opposite party No. 1 and father of opposite parties No. 2 to 4, who are minor children. By an order dated 25.11.2014 passed in Maintenance Case No. 59 of 2011 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur, the petitioner has been asked to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- to opposite party No. 1 and Rs. 500/- each for maintenance for opposite Parties No. 2 to 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the ex parte impugned order has been passed because the petitioner had met with an accident and could not pursue the matter before the court below. He has also submitted

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.121 of 2015 (2) dt.06-03-2017 2/2 that the earnings of the petitioner is not much so as to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate as directed by the court below. I have carefully perused the impugned order. The monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- for the minor children in my view is on lower side. Further, maintenance allowance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive. In such circumstance, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the background of the facts, which have been mentioned in the impugned order. I do not find any merit in this application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Vats/- U T