Patna High CourtCR. REV./688/2015dismissed

Bindu Devi v. Ranjeet Yadav

2019-09-13Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.688 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Bindu Devi, W/o Ranjeet Yadav, D/O Late Birje Yadav, resident of village - Dhabalpur, P.S. - Giriyak, District - Nalanda, presently residing at village - Sikandra, P.S. - Giriyak, District - Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Ranjeet Yadav S/o Chandeshwar Yadav resident of village - Dhabalpur, P.S. - Giriyak, District - Nalanda.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Madan Prasad Singh No-2 For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 19.05.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No. 32(M) of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Biharsharif, Nalanda, rejected the application dated 24.11.2014 of the petitioner for grant of interim maintenance.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Biharsharif, Nalanda, has illegally rejected the application dated 24.11.2014 of the petitioner for payment of interim maintenance without assessment of earning of opposite party no.2, who is husband of the petitioner, only on the ground that petitioner is receiving Rs.3,000/- per month as

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.688 of 2015 dt.13-09-2019 2/2 maintenance, in the light of order passed in Complaint Case No. 423(C) of 2012, filed under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioner.

4. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that before leading the evidence in Complaint Case No. 423(C) of 2012, petitioner filed an application for interim maintenance on 24.11.2014, which has been rejected by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Biharsharif, Nalanda on the ground that opposite party no.2 is already paying Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner as interim maintenance in compliance of order passed in Complaint Case No. 423 of 2012.

5. I find no reason to interfere into the impugned order dated 19.05.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No. 32(M)/13 and accordingly, this Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Bhardwaj/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date