Krishandev Yadaw @ Krishnadeo ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 473 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. Rev. No. 1381 of 2019
             Krishandev Yadaw @ Krishnadeo Yadav                     ...          ... Petitioner
                                            Versus
             1. The State of Jharkhand
             2. Reena Devi                                           ...           ... Opp. Parties
                                               ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

             For the Petitioner         : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate
             For the State              : 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.1211 of 2020

06/15.02.2022: This interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 34 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. 1381 of 2019 Heard the parties.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment dated 03.06.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Original Maintenance Case No.47 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.3,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance.

The other factors are not in dispute save and except the quantum of maintenance.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage is not in dispute. It further appears that husband has contracted another marriage although he claimed that it was with the consent of the first wife.

Be that as it may, wife has reasonable reason for not staying with the husband. Considering the above fact, quantum of maintenance has been granted.

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

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Ravi/-