Jharkhand High Court
Lullu Pradhan @ Raj Pradhan @ Lulu Raj ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 June, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1008 of 2019
-----
Lullu Pradhan @ Raj Pradhan @ Lulu Raj Pradhan ... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Lalita @ Sangita Devi ... .... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, A.P.P.
For O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
08 / Dated : 12.06.2024
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated
10.07.2019 passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by learned Principal Judge
Family Court, Seraikella Kharswan in O.M. Case No. 21 of 2016 directing the
petitioner to pay Rs.6000/- per month to opposite party no. 2.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier on
20.07.2017 ex-parte order was passed directing the petitioner to make payment
of Rs.4000/- per month. Petitioner filed Misc. Petition No. 12/2017 for setting
aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs
4,000/-.
3. After the said restoration maintenance application was allowed which has
been impugned in the present revision petition.
4. It is contended that opposite party no. 2 herself is not willing to live with the
petitioner and lead a happy conjugal life and has deserted the petitioner and has
also filed false criminal case under Sections 498A and 341 of IPC and Sections
3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act being Gamharia P.S. Case No. 25/2012.
5. The petitioner is working in Usha Martin as pleaded on behalf of opposite
party no.2. As a matter of fact, earlier in the ex-parte judgment, maintenance of
Rs.4000/- was allowed and later on his appearance, it was enhanced to Rs.6000/-.
6. The main contention of the petitioner is that without any further material on
record the maintenance amount has been enhanced.
7. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for opposite party
no. 2, has defended the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner is
earning Rs.20,000 to Rs.30,000 by serving in Usha Martin and opposite party no.
2 has supported herself as well as her son.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I find
merit in the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that learned court below
without any further material coming on record has enhanced the maintenance
from Rs.4000/- to Rs.6000/- without assigning any specific reason for
enhancement of the amount.
Under the circumstance, the impugned order of enhancement from Rs.4000/-
to Rs.6000/- is set aside and the maintenance is ordered for Rs.4000/- per month
and the impugned order of maintenance is modified to the extent of Rs.4000/-
per month.
Cr. Revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satayendra
Uploaded
