Bhagwan Rawani vs Maya Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 358 Jhar

                                 -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.1143 of 2019
                          With
                   I.A. No.883 of 2020

    Bhagwan Rawani                             ......      Petitioner

                             Versus
    Maya Devi                                  ......   Opp. Party
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

    For the Petitioner       : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
    For the O.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
05/Dated: 09         February, 2022

1. The present interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 727 days in preferring the present revision application taking the plea that the wife and the husband were residing together and as such the revision application has not been filed.

2. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 31.05.2017, passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, in Original Maintenance Case No.400 of 2016, whereby the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month has been awarded in favour of the wife/ O.P. and Rs.7,000/- (Seven thousand) per month has been awarded in favour of the minor daughter.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that during the court proceedings, itself the matter was compromised and since the wife was residing with the husband and as such the husband has not examined himself as a witness. It has further been argued that maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Rs.7,000/- to the minor daughter, i.e. Rs.17,000/- in total is excessive and it should be reduced. On the above facts, the the order of maintenance has been challenged.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and from perusal of the record, it appears that the husband has

participated in the proceedings in the court below and has even filed the W.S. and allege factum of compromise has not been brought to the notice of the court that they are living together. Further, the husband was agreed to pay Rs.14,000/- as maintenance to the wife and the minor daughter.

The above fact itself suggests that there is dispute between the parties and they are residing separately. The wife has the reasonable reason for residing separately. The factum of marriage is not in dispute. The husband is employed in the Damodar Valley Corporation and as such the awarded maintenance amount of Rs.17,000/- to the wife and minor daughter is not excessive.

5. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in the revision application. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application and I.A. No.883 of 2020 are, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-