Md. Irshad Alam @ Irshad Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 913 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Criminal Revision No.09 of 2021
                                ----

Md. Irshad Alam @ Irshad Alam .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Soni Khatoon .... .... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

----

For the Petitioner                   : None
For the State                        : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.
                                ----
              th
03/Dated: 08 March, 2022

         I.A. No.258 of 2021

1. The present interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 59 days in filing the present criminal revision application.

2. As per the office report, there is no delay and as such the present Interlocutory Application is superfluous and accordingly, the same is, hereby, disposed of.

Criminal Revision No.09 of 2021

1. On repeated calls nobody appears on behalf of the revisionist. Counsel for the State is present.

2. The instant criminal revision application has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 11.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.496 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.3500/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 as maintenance.

3. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the factum of marriage has been disputed by the husband. The court below has taken into consideration materials brought on record and finding has been recorded that the wife is able to prove the factum of marriage and she has been subjected to matrimonial cruelty and a Complaint Case being Complaint Petition Case No.3280 of 2017 under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code has been filed.

4. The income of the husband has also been taken into consideration, having a Gas Agency, he earns 40,000/- per month and also he has rental income. Thus, the court below has considered all the required parameters for grant of maintenance.

5. Considering the materials available on records and quantum of maintenance, this Court does not find any reasonable reason to interfere with the impugned judgement. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application being Criminal Revision No.09 of 2021 stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Amar/-