Rajen Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4208 Jhar

                                       -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                Cr. Revision No.506 of 2017
                             With
                     I.A. No.4664 of 2017

       Rajen Kumar                                       ......         Petitioner

                                   Versus
       1.    The State of Jharkhand
       2.    Gauri Shankar Prasad                        ......   Opp. Parties
                                   ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

       For the Petitioner          : None
       For the State               : Mr. S. K. Srivastava, A.P.P
       For the O.P No.02           : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
                                   ---------
                  th
06/Dated: 16           November, 2021

1. On repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. On the last date also, adjournment was sought for on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Learned A.P.P and learned counsel for the O.P. No.02 are present.

3. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 02.02.2017/ 02.03.2017, passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Original Maintenance Case No.91 of 2012, whereby the total maintenance amount of Rs.3,500/- (Three thousand five hundred) per month has been awarded in favour of the old aged parents (Father and Mother) from the date of passing of the judgment.

4. On perusal of the records, it appears that the court below after considering the entire materials available on record and considering the status of the parties, has granted the maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand) per month in favour of the father and Rs.2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred) per month in favour of the mother.

5. 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.

6. I.A. No.4664 of 2017 also stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-