Suraj Kumar vs Rekha Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 4234 Jhar

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Criminal Revision No. 1291 of 2018
                                          ....

                Suraj Kumar                                       ....    Petitioner
                                          Versus
                1. Rekha Devi
                2. Prince Kumar                                    .... Opposite Parties
                                          ....
                CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Petitioner              : Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Adv.
                For the Opposite Parties        : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Gupta, Adv.
                                                ....

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

....

08/17.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

This revision application has been filed against the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Original Maintenance Case No.73 of 2017 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to opposite party No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to the minor son.

The marriage has taken place between the parties on 12.05.2014. They have been blessed with a male child. It has been alleged by the wife that she has been harassed for which a police case has been lodged. Subsequently, the matter has been compromised. A case of Restitution of conjugal right has also been filed by the husband.

There is dispute between the parties and there is an allegation of harassment. The court below has found that the wife has reasonable reason to live separately. Further the wife has no source of income.

The only issue raised before this Court is regarding the quantum of maintenance, stating that the husband has only small grocery shop and he has to maintain his mother and sister. Further he paid Rs.3,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation in pursuance of the bail order passed in A.B.A. No.6165 of 2018 dated 18.02.2019. Further, prayer has been made for adjustment of the said amount towards the monthly maintenance and also for reduction of the maintenance.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the wife has opposed the prayer and supported the judgment of maintenance and submitted that she has no source of income. The maintenance amount given to her is reasonable and in proportionate with the income which has been assessed as Rs.40,000/- per month.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the factum of marriage is not in dispute. The allegation of harassment and filing of criminal case is there.

Considering the above facts, the quantum of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the wife and minor son is reasonable and as such this Court found no reason to interfere the order of the court below, accordingly, the same is hereby, dismissed.

However, the husband is at liberty to approach the court below for any modification of the order by bringing any change in the circumstances.

With above observation and direction, the present criminal revision stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/