Sunil Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 504 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. Rev. No. 1508 of 2019
             Sunil Kumar Sahu                                ...           ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
             1. The State of Jharkhand
             2. Rekha Devi
             3. Anushka Kumari
             4. Vaibhav Kumar Sahu                           ...            ... Opp. Parties
                                               ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

             For the Petitioner         : Mr. Jawed Sultan, 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.4042 of 2020

5/16.02.2022: This interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 203 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.1508 of 2019 Heard.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment dated 29.01.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Miscellaneous Application Case No.4 of 2017 by which application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. by the Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4, has been allowed by directing the revisionist to give Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5000/- each per month to the minor children as maintenance.

It has been submitted by the revisionist that order of enhancement of maintenance amount is manifold and it is beyond paying capacity of the husband as he has been now suspended.

From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the revisionist is a retired army personnel and getting pension of Rs.15,000/- per month and further Rs.22,000/- per month from the Bank as salary. Further, it has been argued that one child has attained majority. This factual aspect has to be determined on the basis of age assessment.

The point raised by the revisionist is subsequent development for which remedy lies under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

In view of the above submission, present criminal revision is disposed of, giving liberty to the revisionist to file petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

If any such petition is filed, the court below is directed to dispose of the same as soon as possible, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

          Ravi/-                                                              (Rajesh Kumar, J.)