Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 308 (JHR)

Upendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2013-03-01

JAYA ROY

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State on the aforesaid I.A. application and also on the merit of the revision application. 2. Petitioner has filed this revision application for setting aside the order dated 05.01.2011 passed in M.P. Case No. 69 of 2006, whereby the application filed by the O.P. No.2 (who is the wife of the present petitioner) under section 127 of the Cr. P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount. 3. The case in brief is that the applicant-opposite party earlier filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. i.e. M.P. Case No. 99 of 2003. After hearing both the parties the Court below directed the present petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/-(one thousand) per month for maintenance of the applicant-opposite party and Rs. 250/-per month for each of the children by the order dated 05.01.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for Restitution of Conjugal Right before the Principal Judge Family Court, Dhanbad in connection with T.M.S. No. 293 of 2004. In the said application the applicant-opposite party filed a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for awarding her maintenance and the cost of the litigation and in the said case, Principal Judge Family Court directed the applicant-opposite party to pay of Rs. 1,000/-(one thousand) per month as maintenance and Rs. 500/-(five hundred) for cost of litigation, but it was made clear that she cannot take both amount simultaneously from the applicant-opposite party awarded in both the cases as maintenance to her. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that thereafter, the applicant-opposite party filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr. P.C. for enhancement of her maintenance amount and the said case was registered as M.P. Case No. 69 of 2006 before the Court of Principal Judge Family Court, Dhanbad. After hearing both the parties and after considering the materials, the said Court increased the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,000/-(one thousand) to Rs. 3,000/-(three thousand) per month for the wife and from Rs.250 to Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) per month to each of two minor children by the order dated 05.01.2011. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is working under B.C.C.L. and increasing the amount from Rs. 1,000/-(one thousand) to Rs. 3,000/-(three thousand) per month and from Rs. 250/-to Rs. 3,000/-(three thousand) per month for the wife and from Rs.250 to Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) per month to each of two minor children by the order dated 05.01.2011. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is working under B.C.C.L. and increasing the amount from Rs. 1,000/-(one thousand) to Rs. 3,000/-(three thousand) per month and from Rs. 250/-to Rs. 1,000/-per month is very unreasonable in compare to increasing of salary. He has further submitted that the applicant-opposite party filed an execution case and praying therein to pay her increased amount from January 2011 to November 2011, when the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 15,00/-(one thousand five hundred) per month for the said period to her. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he has filed an interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 148 of 2012 for staying the further proceeding in the said execution case. 7. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the petitioner is an employee of B.C.C.L. and salary of the employee in the B.C.C.L. has already been increased and petitioner is getting more than Rs. 12,000/-(twelve thousand) per month, therefore, enhancement of the said amount is not at all unreasonable. It is further contended that now the children are more than 10 years of age, therefore, they require definitely some amount for their study etc., therefore, the increased amount in compare to the salary of the petitioner, is not at all excessive or unreasonable. 8. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusing the impugned order where the Court below has discussed the matter in detail and also considering the amount of salary of the petitioner and also considering the high market price and also the increased educational cost of the present days increasing the amount from Rs. 1,000/-(one thousand) to Rs.3,000/-(three thousand) only per month for the wife and also Rs. 250/-to Rs. 1,000/-per month for each of the minor children is not at all excessive or unreasonable. I further find that the Court below has increased amount only from the date of the order i.e. 05.01.2011, therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 9. However, as the counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the applicant-opposite party filed an execution case for the payment of increased amount from 05.01.2011 and petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 9. However, as the counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the applicant-opposite party filed an execution case for the payment of increased amount from 05.01.2011 and petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 15,00/-(Fifteen hundred) per month till November 2011. I make it clear, the trial Court will consider this matter in the execution case and if the petitioner has paid any amount, he will adjust the said amount from the increased amount only from 05.01.2011. 10. With the aforesaid directions, this revision application is dismissed. 11. I.A. No. 148 of 2012 stands disposed of.