George Francis Topno vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4191 Jhar

                                -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.756 of 2017

    George Francis Topno                     ......      Petitioner

                           Versus
    1.   The State of Jharkhand
    2.   Karuna Topno
    3.   Rithik Marshall Topno
    4.   Riya Jesika Topno                   ......   Opp. Parties
                           ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, A.P.P For the O.Ps. : Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate

---------

03/Dated: 16th November, 2021

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.P.P, assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 02.05.2017, passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Original Maintenance Case No.32 of 2017, whereby the maintenance has been awarded in favour of wife/ O.P No.02 amounting to Rs.12,000/- (Twelve thousand) per month and Rs.7,000/- (Seven thousand) each to the two minor children from 03.02.2017.

3. The revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the ground that he has not been given the proper opportunity to defend his case. The marriage is not in dispute. It has also not been disputed that the revisionist works as Senior Driver in the Indian Railway. On perusal of the record, it appears that the wife has alleged the the revisionist used to beat her by a Hockey stick and harass her and as such, the wife has the reasonable reason for not residing with her husband.

The court below after considering the materials brought on record has assessed the income of the revisionist at around Rs.80,000/- (Eighty thousand) per month and granted the maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- (Twelve thousand) per month to the wife and Rs.7,000/- (Seven thousand) each to the two minor children.

4. Considering the quantum of the maintenance amount

and the findings recorded by the court below, 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/-