Amit Kumar Singh v. Gayatri Devi

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.100 of 2016 (2) dt.04-08-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.100 of 2016 ====================================================== Amit Kumar Singh .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Gayatri Devi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 04-08-2016 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan for the petitioner.

Perused the order dated 23.04.2015. It appears that in criminal miscellaneous application i.e.

anticipatory bail application, the petitioner-husband was directed to pay Rs.1,500 per month as condition for the grant of anticipatory bail and this order was made subject to the order that may be passed in maintenance matter.

By the impugned order dated 23.04.2015, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra in Divorce Case No.275 of 2012 taking into account the order passed in anticipatory bail directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000 per month including the aforesaid Rs.1,500 per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.100 of 2016 (2) dt.04-08-2016 order is reasoned order and it cannot be said that the order passed by the Court below is not in accordance with law or the Court passed the order having no jurisdiction or it exercised the jurisdiction in the manner not permitted by law. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/- U T