Amit Kumar Rajak vs Kumari Sulekha
2021 Latest Caselaw 4986 Jhar

                                -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.363 of 2019

    Amit Kumar Rajak                          ......       Petitioner

                            Versus
    Kumari Sulekha                            ......    Opp. Party
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate Mr. Madhav Prasad, Advocate For the O.P. : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate

---------

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

---------

               nd
07/Dated: 22        December, 2021

1. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that his client has stopped giving any instruction in the matter.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party/ wife is present.

3. Vide orders dated 02.07.2019 and 21.10.2019, the revisionist was directed to make certain payment and the current maintenance also and file affidavit to that effect. It appears that the said orders have not been complied with by the revisionist. Thus, it seems that the revisionist has stopped taking any interest in the present proceedings.

From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that Original Maintenance Case No.158 of 2016 has been filed by the wife for claiming maintenance in which vide order dated 31.03.2017, the court below has ordered for payment of Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife assessing the income of the husband as Rs.69,000/- per month. The other factors have also been considered by the court below. The said order has been passed ex-parte.

Against the said ex-parte order, the Maintenance Alteration Case No.06 of 2017 has been filed by the husband. The court below has discussed the entire submission of the revisionist and after considering the same, the court below has recorded the finding that in spite of valid service of notice the husband has failed to participate in the proceedings.

4. In the present proceedings also the revisionist is not participating, as it is evident from the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist.

5. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reasonable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-