Patna High CourtCR. REV./211/2014dismissed

S.K. Ayaz @ Sk Ayaz Alam v. Sabnam Praveen

2017-01-17Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.211 of 2014 ======================================================

1. S.K. Ayaz @ Sk Ayaz Alam Son Of Abdul Hai R/O Village Saukhi Chakiya, P.S. Chakiya, District East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Sabnam Praveen D/O Maqbul Ahmad R/O Pedari Rampur Korar, P.S. Kesariya, District East Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anisur Rehman For the State : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application has been filed against the judgment and order, dated 05.09.2013 passed in Maintenance Case No. 244 of 2008 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari, East Champaran, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) per month for maintenance of the Opposite party and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) per month for maintenance of the minor son.

3. The petitioner is husband of Opposite party No.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the maintenance has been allowed by relying on a zerox copy of a document showing "sale turn over" the petitioner's shop.

4. I have perused the impugned order. On a specific query as to what is the actual income of the petitioner according to him, a vague answer has been given. There is no specific plea as to the income of the petitioner according to his own assessment. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be approved. He appears to be not fair to the Court and his approach is not bonafide.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also submitted that in his evidence before the Court below P. W.3 had deposed that Opposite party has already contracted another marriage. I do not find any specific plea taken on behalf of the petitioner in this regard.

6. I do not find any merit in this application. This application is, accordingly, rejected.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/- U