Patna High CourtCR. REV./480/2016dismissed

Sk. Bablu v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2018-04-02Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.480 of 2016 ===================================== Sk. Bablu son of Kullu resident of Belagachhi Bandh, P.S. Amdabad, District- Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sitara Khatoon wife of SK. Bablu daughter of Sk Kafil, resident of village- Belagachhi, P.S. Amdabad, DistrictKatihar. .... .... Respondent/s ===================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Indu Bala Pandey(App) ===================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-04-2018 The petitioner is aggrieved by the final order dated 27.02.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar in Maintenance Case No. 106 of 2015 whereby he has been directed to pay to the O.P. No.2 an amount of Rs. 1500 per month from the date of passing of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on the grounds that the petitioner is very poor and despite his poverty, he is ready to keep the O.P. No. 2 with him and accord her all benefits to which she is entitled to and secondly that the manner in which the marriage is said to have been solemnized also raises serious doubt about the matrimonial status of the parties.

These issues may not to be gone into while dealing

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.480 of 2016 (2) dt.02-04-2018 2/2 with the maintenance petition. The relationship between the parties stands admitted. The marriage between the parties may have been performed because of some compulsion but the fact remains that after the marriage, a wife is entitled to be maintained and failure to do so would occasion such civil orders being passed against him.

The quantum of maintenance which has been directed to be paid to the O.P. No. 2 by the Family Court also does not appear to be excessive or on the higher side. No good ground has been made out by the petitioner to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court.

The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. (Ashutosh Kumar, J) Shageer/- U T