Sanjay Tanti vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 618 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. Rev. No. 66 of 2020
             Sanjay Tanti                                     ...         ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
             1. The State of Jharkhand
             2. Poonam Devi                                   ...           ... Opp. Parties
                                               ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

             For the Petitioner         : Mr. N.K. Pd. Sinha, Advocate
             For the State              : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, 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.

---

5/22.02.2022: Present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist-husband against the judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Maintenance Alt. Case No.28 of 2018 whereby maintenance amount has been enhanced to Rs.8000/- per month.

It appears that earlier maintenance case has been filed by the wife for herself and her minor son, which was allowed and the wife has been given Rs.2000/- per month and the minor son has given Rs.1000/- per month, as maintenance vide order dated 27.04.2005 passed in M.P. Case No.120 of 2004.

Present proceeding has been initiated under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for the enhancement.

Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the petitioner is also suffering from various ailments and he has to maintain his mother and brother also. On the above basis, enhancement has been challenged. Further, I.A. No.3499 of 2021 has been filed for condoning the delay of 240 days in preferring present criminal revision and the ground has been taken that the petitioner is suffering from various ailment and further due to paucity of money, he could not file present criminal revision within time.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the entitlement of the wife and son is not in dispute and only quantum of maintenance has been disputed.

Admittedly, the husband is working in BCCL and getting salary around Rs.50,000/- per month.

Considering the above fact, quantum of maintenance granted by the court below is not excessive rather it is quite reasonable.

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

I.A. No.3499 of 2021 is also dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Ravi/-