Sukdev Dutta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 881 Jhar

                                  -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.839 of 2020

     Sukdev Dutta                              ......      Petitioner
                              Versus

     1.      The State of Jharkhand
     2.      Puja Dutta
     3.      Minor Diya Dutta                  ......   Opp. Parties
                              ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. D. C. Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P

---------

                th
02/Dated: 07         March, 2022

I.A. No.6121 of 2020

1. The present interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the present revision application although as per the office report there is no delay rather the revision application has been filed in time.

2. In view of the aforesaid facts, I.A. No.6121 of 2020 stands disposed of.

Cr. Revision No.839 of 2020

1. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 22.02.2020, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - II, Jamtara in Cr. Appeal No.04 of 2019, affirming the order dated 19.12.2018, passed by the court of learned C.J.M., Jamtara in Crl. Misc. (D.V.) No.470 of 2018, whereby Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) per month as maintenance has been granted in favour of the wife and the minor daughter.

2. The case has been filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act being Complain (Domestic Violence) Case No.470 of 2018. The court below after considering the required parameters has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and the minor daughter. The said order has been upheld by the appellate court in Cr. Appeal No.04 of 2019.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and on perusal of the record, it appears that the relationship is not in dispute. The wife is unable to maintain herself and she needs

support of the husband for sustaining herself and her minor daughter.

4. Considering the quantum of maintenance and the reason given by the court below, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-