Vishal Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 488 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Criminal Revision No.168 of 2020
                                 ----

Vishal Saw                                    .... .... Petitioner
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Puja Devi @ Soni Devi                      .... .... Opposite Parties
                                 ----
      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                 ----
For the Petitioner                     : Mr. Vijay Kr. Roy, Adv.
For the State                          : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2                      : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv.
                                 ----

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 05/Dated: 16 February, 2022

1. The instant criminal revision application has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Original Maintenance No.56 of 2017 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.3,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 as maintenance.

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is ready and willing to keep his wife with full honour and dignity. Further, the revisionist earns nearly Rs.5,000/- per month and he has to maintain his parents and other family members. He has also filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. On the above basis, entitlement and quantum of maintenance both have been challenged.

3. On the other hand counsel for the wife has supported the order of maintenance and it has been submitted that there is evidence that the revisionist has Grocery Shop in Kolkata and have handsome income i.e. around Rs.40,000/- per month.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and from perusal of the records, it appears that the marriage is not in dispute. The wife has alleged torture and harassment due non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. After interacting with the parties and considering the entire parameters, the court below has recorded that the wife has reasonable reason for residing separately and further she is unable to maintain herself. Considering the above facts, a meagre amount of Rs.3,000/- per month has been awarded to the Opposite Party No.2 as maintenance.

5. Considering the materials available on records and 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.168 of 2020 stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Amar/-