Patna High CourtCR. REV./963/2014dismissed

Md. Atibullah @ Md. Atik v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-02-16Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.963 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Md. Atibullah @ Md. Atik Son of Md. Ali Ahmad Resident of villageNemna, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar null

2. Bibi Sahani Wife of Md. Atibullah @ Md. Atik and Daughter of Late Md. Mushtafa null

3. Bibi Farjana null

4. Bibi Chandani Both Minors are Daughters of Md. Atibullah @ Md. Atik and under guardian of their mother Bibi Sahani All are residing at villageBello Terra, P.S.- Kishanpur, District- Supaul. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Smt. Renuka Ratnakar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-02-2017 Opposite parties No. 3 and 4 are minor daughters of the petitioner. Opposite party No. 2 is his wife. The petitioner has questioned, in the present Criminal Revision application, an order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Miscellaneous Case No. 88 of 2011, whereby he has been directed to pay monthly allowance at the rate of Rs.1300 for opposite party No. 2 and 700 each for opposite parties No. 3 and 4.

From the grounds, which have been taken in the present criminal revision application to assail the impugned order, I find that there is no dispute over relationship between the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.963 of 2014 (4) dt.16-02-2017 2/2 petitioner and the contesting opposite parties. The petitioner challenges the order mainly on the ground that it is an ex parte order. I would have thought of interfering with the order on the ground of the same being ex parte but because of the nature of the case and the meager amount, which has been directed to be paid to the contesting opposite parties by the impugned order, I am not inclined to interfere with the order. The order does not require any interference.

This application is, therefore, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Vats/- U T