Santosh Kumar Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4472 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Criminal Revision No.513 of 2018
                                ----

Santosh Kumar Saw                           .... .... Petitioner
                              Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Priti Devi                               .... .... Opposite Parties
                                ----
      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                ----
For the Petitioner                   : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Adv.
For the State                        : Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, A.P.P.
                                ----
              th
05/Dated: 29 November, 2021

1. The instant criminal revision application has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.204 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2, has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.1000/- to the minor son as maintenance from the date of application.

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the present criminal revision is counter-blast of the complaint case being C.P. No.1203 of 2014 filed by the petitioner. The other parameters are not in dispute save and except the quantum of maintenance. Further, it has been submitted that the revisionist is a simple labourer and not in a position to give Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.1000/- to the minor son as maintenance.

3. Having heard the parties and from perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the revisionist works in Delhi and the court below after considering the submission of the parties and the entire materials brought on record, has awarded meagre amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.1000/- per month to the minor son as maintenance.

4. In view of above observation, this Court does not find any reasonable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2018. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Amar/-