Shristi Kumari v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.985 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Shristi Kumari wife of Sandeep Kumar Lohani resident of VillagePitamaheshwar, P.S.-Civil Line Gaya, Bihar at Present Residing at K.P. Lane. Madrasa Ke Pass, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
State of Bihar.
2.
Sandeep Kumar Lohani son of Late Shri Gopal Nandan Prasad resident of at Satin Credit Care Ltd. 9th floor, Kanchenjunga Building, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi-110001.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Adv.
:
Mr. Rahul Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 13-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The present Revision Application has been filed against the order dated 30.06.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya in maintenance case no.- 118/2011 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby which the O.P. No. 2 has been directed to pay only Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance allowance, for her minor daughter namely Ananya from the date of order in place of Rs. 25,000/- per month, so the petitioner further prays that the O.P. No. 2 may be directed to enhance the maintenance allowance of her daughter Ananya from Rs. 10,000/- per month to Rs. 25,000/-
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.985 of 2016(4) dt.13-04-2023 2/3 per month from the date of filing of the maintenance case to the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Cr. Revision application, he is not raising points of illegality, correctness or propriety and he his only requesting to this Court that Rs. 10,000/- per month is very less for the daughter of the petitioner, so the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month should be enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- per month.
Counsel for the State submits that from the order it transpires that the husband and the wife both have earning capacity, about which there is categorical direction in the order. He also submits that Rs. 10,000/- per month is the initial amount for the maintenance, under law. O.P. No. 2 has right to file a petition before the Principal Jude, Family Court for the purpose of enhancement of the maintenance amount, time to time. Here, in the present case, no cogent reason is given that for what purpose, the amount should be enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-.
This Court does not find any situation present in this case for enhancement of the maintenance amount. In this view of the matter, there are no questions of illegality, correctness or propriety present in this case.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.985 of 2016(4) dt.13-04-2023 3/3 In this view of the matter, this Cr. Revision is hereby dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Ashishsingh/- U T