Rathindra Sharma vs Sadhna Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 4802 Jhar

                                -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.1066 of 2018

    Rathindra Sharma                          ......       Petitioner

                            Versus
    1.    Sadhna Devi
    2.    Pratima Kumari
    3.    Mukesh Kumar
    4.    Roopa Kumari                        ......    Opp. Parties
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Gouri Debi, Advocate For the O.Ps. : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate

---------

               th
06/Dated: 14        December, 2021

1. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 28.05.2018, passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, in Original Maintenance Case No.107 of 2016, whereby the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) per month has been awarded in favour of the wife and Rs.1,500/- (One thousand five hundred) each per month has been awarded in favour of three children.

2. Save and except the quantum of maintenance amount, the other parameters of the impugned order are not in dispute.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the earning of the revisionist is Rs.3000/- to 4,000/- per month and as such he is not capable to pay total maintenance amount of Rs.6,500/- per month, awarded in favour of the wife and children.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has supported the order of maintenance and submitted that the husband has the agricultural income and he also possesses tractors and also having a cloth shop. On that basis, it has been submitted that the maintenance amount awarded by the court below is of lower side. Further, Rs.2,000/- has been given to the wife and Rs.1,500/- each has been given in favour of three children. Minimum amount of subsistence has been awarded, hence there is no scope for further reduction in the maintenance amount.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the court below has considered the evidence and argument of both the parties and recorded the finding that the wife has been ill-treated for non- fulfillment of the demand of dowry. Further, it has been alleged that the wife lives in adultery and parentage has also been disputed, but no evidence has been brought in support of the same, even wife has not been cross-examined. Thus, the entire attitude of the husband seems that he is avoiding the maintenance.

6. In view of the above discussion and considering the reasons and the findings recorded by the court below, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-