Sahud Ansari @ Chhotu @ Sahud Alam @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 471 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Criminal Revision No.110 of 2020
                                      ----

Sahud Ansari @ Chhotu @ Sahud Alam @ Chotu .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sabina Khatoon .... .... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.

----

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

----

th 04/Dated: 15 February, 2022

1. The instant criminal revision application has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 14.11.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Original Maintenance No.273 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.2500/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 as maintenance.

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the other parameters are not in dispute only quantum of maintenance has been disputed.

3. Having heard the counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the parties are in matrimonial relationship and they have been blessed with three daughters. Nothing has been brought on record regarding the income of the husband and as such the court below has assessed the income of the revisionist on the basis of minimum wages and accordingly the court has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.2500/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 as maintenance.

4. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan wherein it has clearly been stated that the absence of income is not a ground for refusal of maintenance if the husband is healthy and capable of earning.

5. Considering the materials available on records and the quantum of maintenance, this Court does not find any reasonable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application being Criminal Revision No.110 of 2020 stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Amar/-