Patna High CourtCR. REV./353/2017dismissed

Yogendra Rai v. Sanita Devi

2023-02-25Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.353 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Yogendra Rai son of late Ram Sagar Rai @ Sagar Rai, resident of Village Samachak, P.S. Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Sanita Devi Wife of Yogendra Rai, daughter of Late Amiri Rai, resident of Village Shyampur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur Mr. Md.Imteyaz Ahmad For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-02-2023 This criminal revision application has been filed against order dated 26.11.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur in Maintenance Case No. 71 of 2011 whereby the learned Principal Judge has allowed the petition filed by opposite party under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,500/- (three thousand five hundred) per month to opposite party, who is first wife of petitioner, as maintenance.

It is contended on behalf of petitioner that opposite party is able to maintain herself by doing the work of stitching and cloth cutting. It is further contended that earning of the petitioner is not so much to pay the maintenance, as fixed by the Court below, to the opposite party.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.353 of 2017(3) dt.25-02-2023 2/2 From bare perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Court below, after taking into consideration the entire materials, has fixed the amount of maintenance. In this age of high inflation, the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,500/- (three thousand five hundred) per month, as fixed by the learned Court below, cannot be said to be excessive. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which requires any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this criminal revision application stands dismissed.

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