Ekramul Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2946 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Criminal Revision No.1838 of 2018
                                             ---

             Ekramul Ansari                         ...              ...      Petitioner
                                          Versus
             1. The State of Jharkhand
             2. Tanuja Bibi                         ...              ...     Opposite Parties
                                             ---
                CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                             ---
             For the Petitioner               : Mr. Sudhansu Kr. Deo, Adv.
             For the State                    : Mr. V.K. Tiwary, A.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2                  Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv.
                                             ---

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

---

06/17.08.2021: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present revision application has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar in Criminal Misc. Case No.06 of 2016, whereby the opposite party no.2 had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the learned trial court had allowed the petition and directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application to the opposite party no.2.

3. It has been submitted by the revisionist that he is a labourer and he is not in a position to pay such amount as his income is meagre. Further, it is stated that the petitioner had filed a Matrimonial Suit being Matrimonial Suit No.45 of 2016 for 'Bidagari' (restitution) in which he is ready to keep and maintain his wife along with his children.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for opposite party has supported the judgment of the court below over the quantum of the maintenance amount.

5. From perusal of impugned order, it appears that the petitioner had migrated to Haryana for the purpose of earning his livelihood and he is working as a labourer there.

6. Considering the factum of the case and statement of witnesses, it appears that the marriage had taken place in the year 2010 and blessed with two sons and one daughter. Further, it appears that for survival of three persons (the wife and two children), the family court has rightly awarded Rs.5,000/- as maintenance amount, and this court finds no ground for any interference in the said interim maintenance.

Accordingly, the present criminal revision being Cr. Rev. No.1838 of 2018 stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Amar/-