Sabita Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 469 Jhar

                                -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.1025 of 2019

    Sabita Kumari                             ......      Petitioner

                         Versus
    1.   The State of Jharkhand
    2.   Dilip Saw                            ......   Opp. Parties
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Awanikant Prasad, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P For the O.P. No.02 : Mr. Shailendra Jit, 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.

---------

               th
06/Dated: 15        February, 2022

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.P.P and learned counsel for the O.P. No.02.

2. The present revision application has been filed against the order dated 21.05.2019, passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag, in Original Maintenance Case No.131 of 2017, whereby maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred) per month in favour of the petitioner/ wife has been awarded from the date of filing of the application.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the marriage between the parties has taken place on 14.05.2014. The wife has alleged harassment due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and she was driven out of the matrimonial home on 05.03.2016.

It further appears that four witnesses have been examined from the side of the wife including wife herself and no documentary evidence has been brought on record. No witness has been produced from the husband side, but the witnesses of the wife have been cross-examined. In cross- examination, P.Ws.-2 & 3 have claimed that they have seen the driving licence and have deposed that the earning of the husband is around Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/- per month. No other liability of the husband has been brought on record.

The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) SCC 705; Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan. The ability of the husband is not in dispute.

4. Considering the above factors and the materials brought on record, this Court feels that quantum of maintenance is on lower side and it should be enhanced from Rs.2,500/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per month. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.05.2019 is, hereby, modified and the quantum of maintenance amount is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month.

The enhanced maintenance amount will be payable from the date of the order of the court below. From the date of application and till the date of order, the maintenance amount will remain as Rs.2,500/- per month.

5. With the above modification, the present criminal revision application stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-