Sitaram Pandit @ Sitaram Kumar Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 5166 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sitaram Pandit @ Sitaram Kumar Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 May, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                               Cr. Revision No. 414 of 2019

            Sitaram Pandit @ Sitaram Kumar Pandit, aged about 26 years son of
            Budhan Pandit, resident of village- Bedokhurd, P.O. Papka, P.S.
            Barkatha, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand
                                                         ...     ...     Petitioner
                                      Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand
            2. Malti Devi wife of Sitaram Pandit aged about 21 years
            3. Ashta Kumari, daughter of Sitaram Pandit, aged about 01 year
               Both the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are residents of village-
               Bedokhurd, P.O. Kapka, P.S. Barkatha, District-Hazaribag,
               Jharkhand
               At present residents of village Chaurahi, P.O. and P.O. Chandwara
               District Koderma, Jharkhand
                                             ...            ...        Opp. Parties
                                      ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahadeo Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Ms. Mrinalini Adela Tete, Advocate

---

07/10.05.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This criminal revision is directed against the order/judgment

passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in

Original Maintenance Case No. 77 of 2018 which has been filed by

the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 under section 125 of Cr. P.C. whereby

and whereunder by order dated 08.01.2019, the learned Principal

judge allowed total Rs. 3,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2

by 8th day of each English month of Gregorian Calendar (English

Calender) of English Calender i.e. Rs. 1500/- to the petitioner Malti

Devi and Rs. 1500/- to minor daughter Ashtha Kumari as maintenance

allowance from the date of order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction does not want

to press this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has no

objection to the prayer made by the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed as not pressed.

6. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

7. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through

FAX/e. mail.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit