Rabindra Kumar Mishra vs Nitya Kumari Mishra
2021 Latest Caselaw 4227 Jhar

                                 -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.1094 of 2018

    Rabindra Kumar Mishra                        ......       Petitioner
                            Versus
    Nitya Kumari Mishra
    @ Nitu Mishra                                ......   Opp. Party
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. R. P. Gupta, Advocate For the O.P. : Mr. P. K. Sinha, 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.

---------

               th
11/Dated: 17        November, 2021

1. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 11.06.2018, passed by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih, in Maintenance Alteration Case No.9 of 2016, whereby the maintenance amount payable to the wife/ opposite party has been enhanced from Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) to Rs.7,500/- (Seven thousand five hundred) per month.

2. The other factors of the impugned order is not in dispute. Only the quantum of the maintenance amount and effective date from which the maintenance amount is payable have been challenged by the revisionist. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the maintenance amount should be from the date of judgment and not from the date of filing of the application and further, the enhancement in the maintenance amount is disproportionate and as such prayer has been made that it should be accordingly reduced.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife/ opposite party has supported the order of enhancement. Referring to the salary of the revisionist, it has been submitted that the enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) to Rs.7,500/- (Seven thousand five hundred) per month is proportionate to the salary, and as such, no interference is required in the impugned order.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mere perusal of the record, it appears that the salary of the husband has been enhanced to the tune of Rs.34,037/- per month. Considering the salary of the husband, the quantum of the maintenance amount is proportionate.

So far as the effective date from which the maintenance amount is payable is concerned, the matter has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in 2021(2) SCC 324.

5. In view of the above discussion and 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/-