Gopal Krishna vs Sarita Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 4370 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Criminal Revision No.62 of 2018
                                     ----

Gopal Krishna                                    ....     ....    Petitioner
                                   Versus
1. Sarita Devi
2. Rajan Kumar                                   ....     ....    Opposite Parties
                                     ----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Adv.

For the O.Ps.                      : Mrs. Renu Bala, Adv.
                                     ----

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

----

th 07/Dated: 24 November, 2021

1. The instant criminal revision application has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Original Maintenance Case No.42 of 2014 whereby and whereunder, the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the opposite parties, has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month to the opposite party no.1 and Rs.3000/- per month to opposite party no.2 as maintenance.

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that other parameters are not in dispute only quantum of maintenance has been disputed. The income has wrongly been assessed and on that basis prayer for reduction of maintenance amount has been made.

3. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties has supported the order of maintenance.

4. Having heard the counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the quantum of maintenance is proportionate to the income of the husband and the court below after interacting with the parties and assessing their status, standard of living and the entire materials available on record, has awarded Rs.5000/- to the opposite party no.1 and Rs.3000/- per month to opposite party no.2 as maintenance.

5. In view of above discussion and considering the materials available on record, this Court does not find any reasonable reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.11.2017. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application being Criminal Revision No.62 of 2018 stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Amar/-