Patna High CourtCR. REV./1185/2012disposed

Vinod Pandey v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-02-20Justice Smt. Anjana Prakash2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.1185 of 2012 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -0 Year- null Thana -null District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) =========================================================== Vinod Pandey, son of Nageshwar Pandey, resident of village-Karkatpur, P.S.- Akorhi Gola, District- Rohtas at Sasaram .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Nisha Devi, wife of Vinod Pandey, resident of village-Karkatpur, P.S.-Akorhi Gola, District- Rohtas at Sasaram at present resident of Manik Parasi, P.S.- Karkat (gorari), Rohtas

3. Rashmi Kumari, d/o Nisha Devi, resident of village-Karkatpur, P.S.-Akorhi Gola, District- Rohtas at Sasaram .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-02-2015

1. No one appears on behalf of the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner seeks revision of the order dated 14.09.2012 by which the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtas at Sasaram, has allowed maintenance to the tune `of two thousand per month for Opposite Party No.2 and `one thousand per month for child i.e. Opposite Party No.3 in Maintenance Case No.59 of 2010.

3. I find from the order-sheet of the Principal Judge, Family Court that even though documentary proof had been brought that salary of the Petitioner being `four thousand, he assumed that the Petitioner was earning `eight thousand and from where this assumption has appeared I am unable to understand.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1185 of 2012 dt.20-02-2015 2/2

4. In view of such, the application is allowed to extent that the amount of `two thousand to the Opposite Party No.2 is reduced to `one thousand and amount of `one thousand to Opposite Party No.3 is reduced to `five hundred/-. Now, the Petitioner shall pay `one thousand five hundred in favour of the Opposite Party No.2 and his child from the date of the order i.e. 14.09.2012.

5. The application stands disposed off with the aforesaid modification.

(Anjana Prakash, J) JA/- U T