Upendra Yadav @ Upendra Singh vs State Of Bihar And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 976 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         CRIMINAL REVISION No.324 of 2017
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-
     ======================================================

Upendra Yadav @ Upendra Singh Son of Jagnarayan Singh, resident of Village- Dhudhani Kamarpur, P.S.- Muffasil Buxar, District- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. State Of Bihar

2. Rina Devi, wife of Upendra Yadav @ Upendra Singh, D/o Late Parasnath Yadav, resident of Village- Dhudhani Kamarpur, P.S.- Muffasil Buxar, District- Buxar. Presently residing at Village- Jagdishpur, P.O.- Nadaw, P.S.- Mufasil Buxar, District- Buxar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pradhan, APP For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Kr. Pradhan, Adv. with Mr. Mungeshwar Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 14-03-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned A.P.P. for the State.

The present application has been filed for setting

aside the order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Buxar in Maintenance Case No. 108(M)/2013 by

which the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month

for maintenance to O.P. No. 2 and Rs.10,000/- as a cost of

litigation to her.

Counsel for petitioner submits that in the order

passed by the Trial Court, this aspect has completely been Patna High Court CR. REV. No.324 of 2017 dt.14-03-2023

ignored that petitioner is paying Rs.1,000/- to O.P. No. 2 every

month without fail in compliance of order of this Hon'ble Court

in Cr. Misc. No. 41122 of 2011. Counsel further submits that

there is no cause of action for O.P. No. 2 to seek maintenance as

she had deserted the petitioner and her children also who are

maintained by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the

petitioner is a good guardian and he is providing education to

the children. His son is reading in graduation and daughter has

passed the examination of intermediate. Counsel submits that

the petitioner has been dismissed from service of C.R.P.F. and

presently unemployed. He submits that there is no source of

income of the petitioner. He has having few kathas of ancestral

land with the help of which he is maintaining his children.

Counsel for State submits that the plea of dismissal

from the service has been raised by the petitioner before the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Buxar also but no document

relating to dismissal was produced before the Court. As such,

Court has not accepted the said plea. Counsel for State further

submits that the plea of dismissal of service was the strongest

plea of the petitioner. He has also taken ground in the revision

but in support thereof, he has not produced any document either

before the Family Court or before this Court. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.324 of 2017 dt.14-03-2023

Upon specific query from the Court to the

petitioner that he has filed this application under Section 19(4)

of Family Court Act, 1984 in which the point of correctness,

legality and propriety are necessary for interference of the

Hon'ble High Court in the order of Family Court. On this point,

counsel submits that payment of Rs.1,000/- per month is being

made to O.P. No. 2 in compliance of the order passed by the

Hon'be Court in Cr. Misc. No. 41122 of 2011 at the time of

granting anticipatory bail and this amount has not been adjusted/

set-off at the time of granting maintenance.

In this view of the matter, let the order dated

06.02.2017 passed in Maintenance Case No. 108(M)/2013 is

hereby modified only up to that extent that O.P. No. 2 shall be

entitled to receive only Rs.7,000/- per month as Rs.1,000/- she

is continuously receiving from the petitioner in compliance of

the order passed by the Hon'ble Court in Cr. Misc. No. 41122 of

2011.

Since, it has been only pleaded by the counsel for

petitioner that petitioner has been dismissed at the Trial Court as

well as before the High Court but in support thereof, he has not

produced a single chit of paper either before the Family Court or

before the High Court. So far as the order passed by the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.324 of 2017 dt.14-03-2023

Principal Judge, Family Court, Buxar is concerned, this Court

finds that there is neither any illegality nor any lack of propriety

in the said order.

Hence, this Cr. Rev. application is disposed off

with an observation aforesaid and without interfering in the

findings of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Buxar on the

point of maintenance.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date