Anuj Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4289 Jhar

                                 -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.1348 of 2017

    Anuj Kumar Sinha                          ......      Petitioner

                             Versus
    1.   The State of Jharkhand
    2.   Mausmi Srivastava
    3.   Mrinal                               ......   Opp. Parties
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Ms. Mahua Palit, A.P.P For the O.Ps. : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate

---------

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the party(s) had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

---------

               th
07/Dated: 20        November, 2021

1. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 01.08.2017, passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, in Miscellaneous Case No.172 of 2012, whereby the maintenance has been awarded in favour of the wife/ O.P. No.02 amounting to Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month and Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) per month to the minor son/ O.P. No.03 from the date of order.

2. The other parameters of the impugned order have not been disputed save and except the quantum of maintenance. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist works is an Junior Engineer in the C.P.W.D and he gets salary of Rs.27,000/- per month only, and as such the quantum of maintenance, as granted by the court below, is excessive.

3. On the other hand, learned A.P.P assisted by the learned counsel for the the opposite parties have supported the impugned order.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the court below has considered the submission of the parties and has also perused the salary slip of the revisionist and found his salary at Rs.51,922/- per month.

5. Considering the assessment of the income of the revisionist and the quantum of maintenance awarded 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/-