Neetu Singh vs Rajeev Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 353 Jhar

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    Cr. Revision No. 1145 of 2019
                                          ....

1. Neetu Singh

2. Paridhi Narayan .... Petitioners Versus Rajeev Kumar .... Opp. Party ....

                CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Petitioners              : Mr. S.K.Roy, Adv.
                For the Opp. Party               : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Adv.
                                                 ....

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

....

08/09.02.2022 Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned counsel for the husband/opposite party.

This revision application has been filed against the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur in Original Maintenance Case No.139 of 2018 by the wife whereby a meager amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to the minor daughter has been awarded from the date of order.

It appears that the interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- has been given w.e.f. 10.01.2019 while the date of application is 01.08.2018.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the wife that the husband is an employee of Bokaro Steel Plant Limited and he is getting salary around Rs.35,000/- per month and still the meager amount is being paid and referring to the requirement and paying capacity of the husband, enhancement has been prayed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the husband has supported the order of maintenance and submitted that he has taken loan and entire salary is being deducted towards loan and he is getting meager amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as salary.

Apart from the oral statement, no evidence has been brought on record. This fact has not been accepted by the court below and accordingly above maintenance amount has been granted but the quantum of maintenance appears to be very meager and also it has not been awarded from the date of application which is the mandate of law as reported in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 in the case of Rajneesh Vrs. Neha & Anr.

In view of above factual position and the mandate of law, the maintenance amount is enhanced and it is quantified as Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Rs.5,000/- to the daughter and the same shall be payable from the date of application.

With above modification of the impugned order, the present criminal revision stands allowed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/