Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Chatterjee vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 February, 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.166 of 2018
Ajay Chatterjee ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Suparna Chatterjee
3. Sonty Chatterjee
4. Shree Chatterejee ...... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. N. Chatterjee, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
For the O.Ps : Mr. Nilesh 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.
---------
nd
10/Dated: 22 February, 2022
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.P.P
and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. The present revision application has been filed against
the judgment dated 23.09.2016, passed under Section 125 of
the Cr.P.C by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No.139 of 2016,
whereby the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- (Five
thousand) each per month in favour of the wife/ O.P. No.02
and son/ O.P. No.03 and Rs.4,000/- (Four thousand) per month
to the daughter/ O.P. No.04 has been awarded. The order is
an ex-parte order.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
revisionist that the quantum of maintenance is excessive and
it is beyond the paying capacity of the husband. It has been
further submitted that the revisionist gets salary around
Rs.23,000/- from MECON Limited while the total maintenance
has been awarded as Rs.14,000/-. On the above facts, the
revisionist has challenged the order of maintenance.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the opposite parties has supported the order of
maintenance. It has been submitted that the in spite of valid
service of notice, the husband has choosen not to participate
in the proceedings in the court below. Further, the court
below has considered the rental income of the husband from
two flats, which has not been denied or disputed even in the
present pleadings and as such the quantum of maintenance is
not excessive rather it is reasonable. Further the son/ O.P.
No.03 who is getting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- has attained
majority and as such he is out of the zone of getting
maintenance and thus, the total maintenance comes down to
Rs.9,000/- per month.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record, it appears that the marital relationship
is not in dispute. The wife has the reasonable reason for
residing separately and that factum has not been agitated
even before the revisional jurisdiction of the Revisional Court.
Only the quantum has been disputed showing the salaried
income. The income from rent has also not been disputed in
the pleading.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to
interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the
present criminal revision application is, hereby, dismissed.
The husband is at liberty to approach the court below
under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C, if any circumstantial change
has taken place.
6. In view of the disposal of the present revision
application, I.A. Nos.1837 of 2021 and 7428 of 2021 stand
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
