Patna High CourtCR. REV./52/2017dismissed

Chandan Kumar v. Khushboo Kumari And ANR

2023-02-21Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.52 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Chandan Kumar Son of Narendra Prasad Mothi, Resident of VillageVishnichak Chandpur, Sameli, Doranda, Police Station- Falka, DistrictKatihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Khushboo Kumari Wife of Chandan Kumar and Daughter of Sunil Chourasia, 2.

Anshika Kumari Minor, Daughter of Chandan Kumar and under guardianship of her mother (Opposite Party No.2) Both above presently residing at Village- Khunti Haseli, Police Station- Srinagar K. Nagar, District- Purnea.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. advocate Mr. Vipin Kr. Singh & Ms.Nikita Mittal For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This criminal revision application has been filed against order dated 22.11.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in Maintenance Case No. 78 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge has allowed the petition filed by opposite parties under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 1, who is wife of petitioner, and Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2, who is daughter of petitioner, as maintenance from the date of filing of maintenance case. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.52 of 2017(4) dt.21-02-2023 2/2 that without assessing the income of the petitioner and considering any documentary evidence placed by petitioner, the impugned order has been passed.

I have carefully perused the impugned order. The monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to wife of petitioner and Rs. 3,000/- per month to daughter of petitioner in this age of high inflation cannot be said to be on higher side or excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned in the impugned order. The findings recorded by the court below are based on evidence.

I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which requires any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this criminal revision application stands dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) BKS/- U T