Kaushal Kumar Gupta @ Kaushal ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 537 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 Cr. Rev. No. 1519 of 2019
             Kaushal Kumar Gupta @ Kaushal Gupta                  ...           ... Petitioner
                                      Versus
             1. The State of Jharkhand
             2. Dipa Devi
             3. Mahi Kumari                               ...            ... Opp. Parties
                                                  ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.2, 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.

---

06/17.02.2022: Heard.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist-husband against the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar in Original Maintenance Case No.47 of 2018 by which application filed by Opp. Party Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has been allowed by directing the revisionist to give Rs.3500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1500/- per month to the minor daughter, as maintenance.

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

It has been submitted that the revisionist sells Water Pan Cake (Pani Pudi) and his income has wrongly been assessed and the quantum of maintenance is excessive.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has taken into account the income of the husband as he has income from different source and considering the same, meagre amount of Rs.3500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1500/- per month to the minor daughter has been awarded.

Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 S.C.C. 705.

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

Pending I.A. for limitation is also disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Ravi/-