Dilip Vishwakarma vs Soni Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 665 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Cr. Rev. No. 1416 of 2019

                 Dilip Vishwakarma                                         ...           ...    Petitioner
                                                 Versus
                 Soni Devi                                                 ...            ... Opp. Party
                                               ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

             For the Petitioner        : Mr. S.N. Roy, Advocate
             For the O.P.              : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate
                                               ---

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.

---

07/23.02.2022: This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 01.04.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Original Maintenance Case No.279 of 2015 whereby maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1000/- per month to the minor son has been awarded.

Other factors are not in dispute save and except the quantum of maintenance.

It has been submitted that the revisionist is now jobless and as such, he is not capable of maintaining the wife and on that basis quantum of maintenance has been challenged.

On the other hand, counsel for the wife has supported the order of maintenance and reliance has been placed on the judgment reported in the case Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan {(2015) 5 S.C.C. 705}.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that present criminal revision has been filed after delay of 111 days on 24.10.2019 but till date no application of condonation of delay in preferring present criminal revision has been filed. It further appears that the marriage and parentage are not in dispute. It has been informed that the wife is not capable for maintaining herself. She has reasonable reason for not staying with the husband as she has been harassed for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry.

In view of the above facts and considering the quantum of maintenance, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, it is hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Ravi/-