← Library
Patna High CourtCR. REV./1018/2016dismissed

Md. Saif Ali @ Nazil v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2023-02-20Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.1018 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Md. Saif Ali @ Nazil, Son of Md. Yunus, Resident of Village- Maulvichak, P.S.- Chandauti, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State of Bihar 2.

Naziya Khatoon, Wife of Md. Saif Ali @ Nazil, Resident of VillageDamodarpur, P.S.- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kunwar Narayan Jamuar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Atul Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-02-2023 This criminal revision application has been filed against order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad in Maintenance Case No. 29 of 2015 whereby petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party No. 2 (wife of the petitioner) as maintenance allowance from the date of application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is getting only Rs. 9,000/- per month as a casual labour. He has no ancestral property and his only source of income is through working as a labour and as such, he is not in a financial position to pay the maintenance so fixed by the Court below.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1018 of 2016(3) dt.20-02-2023 2/2 I have carefully perused the impugned order. The monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 (wife of the petitioner) in this age of high inflation cannot be said to be on higher side or excessive. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned in the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which requires any interference by this Court. Findings arrived at by the Court below are based on evidences available on record. I do not find any merit in this application. This criminal revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T