Jharkhand High Court
Syed Sahood Alam @ Juli vs Juhi Perween on 14 September, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.811 of 2020
Syed Sahood Alam @ Juli ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Juhi Perween
2. Minor Syed Hamza Alam
3. Minor Jariyah Aram
4. Minor Syed Hamiz Alam ...... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the O.Ps. :
---------
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
05/Dated: 14 September, 2021
1. Defects, as pointed out by the Registry, are hereby,
ignored.
2. The present revisionist is the husband who has invoked
the Revisional jurisdiction of this Court against the order
dated 11.12.2019, passed by the court of learned Additional
Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Jamshedpur in O.M.
(Misc. Case) No.291 of 2017, whereby the maintenance
amount of Rs.6,000/- (Six thousand) per month to his wife,
Rs.4,000/- (Four thousand) per month to the minor eldest son,
Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) per month to the minor daughter
and Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) per month to the youngest son,
has been awarded from the date of the order.
3. The quantum of maintenance has been challenged by
disputing the income assessed by the court below. The other
parameters of the impugned judgment has been accepted. It
has been submitted that the revisionist is a labourer and his
monthly earning is around Rs.8,000/- (Eight thousand), and as
such, he is unable to pay the maintenance amount as has
been awarded by the court below.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and
on going through the impugned order, it appears that the
court below has taken into consideration the oral as well as
the documentary evidence. Photographs suggests that the
revisionist has the grocery shop. The marriage of the
revisionist with O.P No.01 was solemnized in the year 2009 as
per the muslim rites and they have been blessed with three
children. Two children are studying in Motilal Nehru Public
School and the youngest child is studying in a Play School.
Thus, considering the living standard and status of the
parties and further the evidence brought on record, the court
below has assessed the income of the revisionist at around
Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) per month and on that basis
Rs.6,000/- (Six thousand) per month maintenance has been
awarded to the wife, Rs.4,000/- (Four thousand) per month to
the minor eldest son, Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) per month to
the minor daughter and Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) per month
to the youngest son.
It is well settled law that proceeding under Section 125
of the Cr.P.C is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and it is
temporary in nature.
5. In view of the above discussion and on perusal of the
materials available on record, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order accordingly, the criminal
revision application is, hereby, rejected.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
