Pritam Choudhury @ Praveen ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 472 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. Rev. No. 1389 of 2019
             Pritam Choudhury @ Praveen Choudhury @ Pritam Kewat...               ... Petitioner
                                           Versus
             1. The State of Jharkhand
             2. Ruby Devi                                            ...           ... Opp. Parties
                                               ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

For the Petitioner : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, 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.

---

I.A. No.4343 of 2021

07/15.02.2022: This interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 6 days in filing present criminal revision.

In view of the statements made in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing criminal revision, is hereby, condoned.

The aforesaid interlocutory application stands allowed. Cr. Rev. No. 1389 of 2019 Heard.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment dated 29.06.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Original Maintenance Case No.19 of 2019 by which application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Opp. Party No.2, has been allowed by directing the revisionist to give Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance.

It has been submitted by the counsel for revisionist that he is ready to keep his wife with full honour and dignity but she refused to stay with him and as such, she is not entitled for maintenance as per the mandate of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that the quantum of maintenance is excessive and the husband is unable to pay the same.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the parties have got married in the year 1995. It further appears that the relationship is in dispute for which a criminal case has been lodged under Sections 498 (A) and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The court below after evaluating the evidence brought on record, has recorded the finding that the wife has reasonable reason for not staying with the husband. Considering the fact that the husband earns Rs.20000/-per month as he earns from fishery business and possesses landed property also, quantum of maintenance has been awarded.

I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, it is hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Ravi/-