Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar Dunail vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 February, 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.89 of 2018
Rajesh Kumar Dunail ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Nita Dunail ...... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Niki Sinha, A.P.P
For the O.P No.02 : Mr. Sachin Kumar, 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
04/Dated: 16 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 judgment dated 28.11.2017, passed under Section 125 of
the Cr.P.C by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Original Maintenance
Case No.34 of 2015, whereby the maintenance amount of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month in favour of the wife/
O.P. No.02 has been awarded.
3. From the pleadings and arguments, it appears that the
marriage is not in dispute rather it is a third marriage. Out of
the first marriage, the revisionist-husband has been blessed
with one daughter, who is now aged about 19 years. The
second marriage of the revisionist has been resulted in
divorce and thereafter this marriage has been solemnized.
The other factors are not in dispute save and except the
quantum of maintenance.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
revisionist that pay slip of the revisionist for the year 2016-17
was produced before the court below, which suggests that the
income of the husband was around Rs.27,000/- per month and
he was getting salary around Rs.24,800/- per month after
deduction.
Referring to the quantum of maintenance and the fact
that the husband has to maintain his old aged parents as well
as the daughter, which has been blessed with the first wife,
the prayer has been made for reduction in the maintenance
amount.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the wife has
supported the order of maintenance. It has been submitted
that looking to living standard, the maintenance amount of
Rs.10,000/- per month is reasonable.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record, it appears that there are five persons of
the family have to survive out of the income from salary, i.e.
around Rs.25,000/-. If it is equally distributed then share of
the wife will be around Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) per month.
It is trite that the maintenance has to be fixed qua
paying capacity of the husband taking into consideration
rights of the other dependents.
7. In view of the above discussions, the quantum of
maintenance is reduced to Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) per
month. The said maintenance amount will be applicable from
the date of application, as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.
Both, the husband and wife are at liberty to move
petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C in the court below, if
any circumstantial change takes place.
8. With the above modification in the impugned judgment,
the present criminal revision application stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
