Lachami Mehjan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4230 Jhar

                                -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.321 of 2017

    Lachami Mehjan
    @ Lachami Mejhan                         ......      Petitioner

                            Versus
    1.   The State of Jharkhand
    2.   Sumi Mejhan                         ......   Opp. Parties
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. S. P. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P

---------

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
05/Dated: 17        November, 2021

1. The present revision application has been filed by the daughter-in-law challenging the judgment dated 11.01.2017, passed by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, in Maintenance Petition No.339 of 2015, whereby the maintenance has been awarded in favour of the mother- in-law/ O.P. No.02 to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) per month from the date of filing of the application.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the impugned judgment. Mere perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the daughter-in-law has got the job in place of the deceased son of the opposite party. As per the condition of the Management of the Company, the petitioner has the obligation to maintain the mother of her deceased husband. The mother-in-law is an old aged lady and she is unable to maintain herself. It is the duty of the daughter-in-law to maintain her mother-in-law. Rs.5,000/- as maintenance has been awarded to the O.P. No.02 while the salary of the revisionist has been assessed to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per month.

3. 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.

4. However, if any amount has been paid by the revisionist to the opposite party, the same shall be adjusted towards the maintenance amount.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-