Jharkhand High Court
Shekhar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 February, 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.500 of 2019
Shekhar Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Usha Singh
3. Anupam Aditya (Minor) ...... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, A.P.P
For the O.Ps. : Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, 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.
---------
nd
04/Dated: 22 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 order dated 02.03.2019, passed under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No.103 of 2017,
whereby the maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/- (Seven
thousand) per month in favour of the wife/ O.P. No.02 and
Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) per month to the minor son/ O.P.
No.03 has been awarded.
3. The other factors are not in dispute save and except the
quantum of maintenance. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is a
labourer and his earning does not match with the quantum of
maintenance. On the above facts, quantum of maintenance
has been challenged.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the wife has
supported the order of maintenance. It has been submitted
that apart from business of PVC materials, the husband has
other source of income also.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage is not in
dispute, the parentage of child is also not in dispute. The wife
has the reasonable reason for residing separately. The court
below has considered the conflicting evidence regarding the
income brought on record by the parties and the actual
expenditure of the child in education and on that basis the
quantum of maintenance has been decided.
It is trite that the quantum of maintenance has to be
decided on assessing the source of income brought on record
as well as considering the status of the parties.
The court below had the advantage of interacting with
the parties and on that basis status of the parties has been
taken into consideration while deciding the quantum of
maintenance.
6. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any
reasonable reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the wife has prayed for shifting of
the maintenance order from the date of application as it has
been awarded from the date of order. Reference has been
made to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
(2021) 2 SCC 324 (Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr.).
In view of the settlement of the issue by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the impugned order dated 02.03.2019 is modified
to the extent that the maintenance amount will be payable
from the date of application.
7. With the above modification in the impugned order, the
present criminal revision application stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
