Patna High CourtCR. REV./791/2015dismissed

Phani Bhushan Kumar @ Phani Bhusan Kumar Shahi @ Fani Bhushan Kumar Shahi v. Lalita Devi And ANR

2016-12-14Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.791 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- MUZAFFARPUR ===========================================================

1. Phani Bhushan Kumar @ Phani Bhusan Kumar Shahi @ Fani Bhushan Kumar Shahi Son of Madan Prasad Shahi Resident of Village - Madhuban Bashi, P.S. Aurai, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Lalita Devi Daughter of Bijli Baitha Resident of Village - Madhuban Bashi, P.S. Aurai, District - Muzaffarpur

2. Sangita Kumari Daughter Phani Bhushan Kumar Resident of Village - Madhuban Bashi, P.S. Aurai, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Firoz Raza, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH JUDGMENT AND ORDER ORAL Date: 14-12-2016 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order, dated 22.01.2015, passed, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur, in Maintenance Case No. 195 of 2013, whereby he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for maintenance of his wife (Opposite Party No. 2) and a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as maintenance of his daughter (Opposite Party No. 3).

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.791 of 2015 dt.14-12-2016 2/2

3. The sole ground which has been taken in the present application is that the petitioner had no notice of the proceeding of the said Maintenance Case No. 195 of 2013 and the order has been passed behind his back.

4. There are two reasons why I am not inclined to entertain this application. Firstly, the Court below has mentioned that despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear, which compelled the Court to pass an ex-parte order. Secondly, the amount awarded as maintenance per month by the learned Court below does not appear to be excessive.

5. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, dated 22.01.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No. 195 of 2013.

6. This application is accordingly dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 20.12.2016 Transmission Date 20.12.2016