Jharkhand High Court
Md. Salim Ansari @ Salim vs Gulshan Ara on 24 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.35 of 2018
----
Md. Salim Ansari @ Salim .... .... Petitioner
Versus
Gulshan Ara .... .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Adv.
For the O.P. : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, 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
05/Dated: 24 November, 2021
1. The instant criminal revision application has been filed against the
impugned judgment dated 10.11.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.270 of 2015
whereby and whereunder the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
filed on behalf of the opposite party, has been allowed and the revisionist has
been directed to pay Rs.4000/- per month to the opposite party and Rs.2000/-
per month to the minor daughter as maintenance.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the
other parameters are not in dispute only quantum of maintenance has been
challenged. The revisionist is a helper in a chicken shop and earns only
Rs.4,000/- per month and he is unable to pay the maintenance amount.
Further, it has been submitted that there is no sufficient evidence rather the
wife was unaware regarding the total income of the husband. On that basis,
quantum of maintenance has been challenged.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the wife has supported the
judgment of maintenance and it has been submitted that there is also a
criminal case pending against the revisionist for harassment and on promise
to the court that he will keep the wife with proper care and dignity, the bail
has been granted but again she has been driven out by the husband from the
matrimonial house and at present she is at the stage of vagrancy.
4. Having heard the counsel for the parties and from perusal of the
records, it appears that the other parameters are not in dispute only quantum
of maintenance has been challenged. The court below after considering the
entire materials brought on record by the parties has assessed the income of
the revisionist as Rs.12,000/- per month and accordingly, the maintenance
amount has been granted to the opposite party and his minor daughter.
5. The court below has privilege to interact with the parties and get an
opportunity to assess the status of the parties, and hence, the quantum of
maintenance decided by the family court should not be interfered unless the
same is unreasonable.
6. In view of above discussion, this Court does not find any reasonable
reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.11.2017. Accordingly,
the present criminal revision application being Criminal Revision No.35 of
2018 stands dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
