Santosh Kujur vs Kanti Tirki
2024 Latest Caselaw 10202 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Santosh Kujur vs Kanti Tirki on 28 October, 2024

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       Cr. Rev. No.1132 of 2024
          Santosh Kujur, aged about 40 years, S/o- Klastus Kujur, R/o- 276/20, Lane No. 6
          Narendra Nagar, Santjude Church, P.O. & P.S. & District-Sonipat (Haryana),
          Pin-131001.                               ...     ... Revisionist(s)/ Petitioner(s)
                                         Versus
         1. Kanti Tirki, aged about 35 years, W/o- Santosh Kujur
         2. Austin Kujur, aged about 5 years (represented through his mother Opposite
         Party no. 1), S/o- Santosh Kujur, Both R/o- Village Barawa, P.O. Bariya, P.S.-
         Ranka, District- Garhwa (Jharkhand), Mob:- 9128899805.
                                                          ...     ...     Opp. Party(s)
                                     ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binod Singh, Adv.

          For the O.P.                       : none
                                     ---

02/28.10.2024: Heard the counsel for the revisionist.

2. Present revision has been filed against the order dated 04.09.2024 passed learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original Maintenance Case No. 203/2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. By the said order, Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance has been awarded to the wife and her minor son.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has taken two points:- (i) wife is capable to maintain herself being a Nurse and (ii) there is no affidavit in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of Rajneesh v. Neha {(2021) 2 SCC 324}.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the points taken by the revisionist has been considered already by the court below. Further, there is a minor son, out of the wedlock and that has not been disputed. It is composite maintenance given by the court below and as such, there is no interference required by this Court. So far as income of the petitioner is concerned, that has also been taken into consideration by the court below. Further Apex Court's Judgment has also been considered. There is no averment to the fact that single penny has been given by the father to the minor son.

6. Considering the arguments of the counsel for the revisionist as well as the impugned order, I do not find any merit to interfere with the order of the court below. Accordingly, the same is hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Ravi/-

Uploaded