Wakil Singh @ Vakil Deo Singh vs Urmila Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 3076 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr. Revision No. 10 of 2020
                                   .......

Wakil Singh @ Vakil Deo Singh .... ....Petitioner

-Versus-

                 Urmila Devi                                               ....   ....Opp. Party

                 CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                                  .......
                 For the Petitioner       : - Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Adv.
                 For the Opp. Party       :-
                                          .....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the petitioner had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities were good.

........

I.A. No. 834 of 2020

05/24.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 76 days in preferring the present criminal revision.

Considering the nature of dispute and reasons assigned in the present interlocutory application, I. A. No. 834 of 2020 stands allowed and disposed of. Delay of 76 days in preferring the present criminal revision is hereby condoned.

Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2020 Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original (Maintenance) Case No. 145 of 2017 by which the learned Court below has allowed the prayer of the opposite party for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of application.

Vide order dated 08.07.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.

From perusal of the records and argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that Original (Maintenance) Case No. 145 of 2017 has been filed by the wife claiming that marriage has taken place about 20 years ago and they have blessed with one son and one daughter. Son is residing with husband and daughter has already been married. It further appears that she is residing alone and she has no means for surviving. Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of maintenance. In the proceeding, only wife has been examined as witness as P. W. -1 and husband has not produced any oral or documentary evidence and only argument has been advanced. Considering the material available on records, the Court below has granted Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife.

Considering the quantum of compensation and further it is settled law that proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Kamlesh/