Aslam Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 467 Jhar

                                 -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.1342 of 2019

    Aslam Ansari                              ......      Petitioner
                             Versus

    1.       The State of Jharkhand
    2.       Shahnaz Praveen                  ......   Opp. Parties
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. M. K. Mishra, Advocate

---------

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

---------

05/Dated: 15th February, 2022

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.P.P.

In spite of valid service of notice nobody appears on behalf of O.P. No.02.

2. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 11.09.2019, passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Original Maintenance Case No.98 of 2018, whereby maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- (Six thousand) per month in favour of wife/ O.P No.02 has been awarded from the date of filing of the case.

3. Save and except the quantum of maintenance, the other factors are not in dispute. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has examined himself and has produced the certificate (exhibit showing his monthly income at Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month) and in spite of the above fact, the court below has assessed the income of the husband at Rs.25,000/- per month and consequently has awarded Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of wife, which is per se illegal.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there are other evidence available on record also regarding the income of the husband. After interacting with the parties and assessing the living standard of the husband, the court below has assessed

the income of the husband at Rs.25,000/- per month and accordingly awarded the maintenance of 6,000/- per month to the wife. This finding cannot be termed as perverse finding.

5. Considering the reasons assigned by the court below, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-