Pramod Kumar Thakur vs State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3656 Jhar

                                 -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.309 of 2017
                            With
                   I.A. No.4665 of 2017

    Pramod Kumar Thakur                       ......      Petitioner

                             Versus
    1.      State of Jharkhand
    2.      Ritu Thakur                       ......   Opp. Parties
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

    For the Petitioner       : None
    For the State            : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P
                             ---------

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: 28        September, 2021

1. On repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Learned A.P.P is present.

3. The present revision application has been filed against the order dated 03.02.2017, passed by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No.173 of 2010, whereby the maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- (Four thousand) per month to the wife/ O.P. No.02, and Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) each per month for the two daughters has been awarded from the month of February, 2017.

4. From perusal of the record of the instant revision application, it appears that only ground which has been taken by the revisionist is quantum of maintenance. The court below has considered the material evidence available on record and has given the finding. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, it is admitted that he runs a factory in the name and style of M/S Vishwakarma Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Considering the materials available on record and the status of the parties, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the court below is just and rational. It is trite 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, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment accordingly, the criminal revision application is, hereby, dismissed.

6. I.A. No.4665 of 2017 stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-