Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1083 (JHR)

Ravi Ranjan Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-19

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : Heard Mr. Avishek Prasad, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and 3. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 28.05.2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in M. P. No. 98 of 2012 filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by which the petitioner has been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party No. 3 has failed to show any sufficient reason as to why she does not want to live in her matrimonial home. It has also been submitted that the father of the petitioner is a cancer patient and unemployed brother of the petitioner is also depending on the petitioner as such the quantum of maintenance is at a higher side. Learned counsel further submits that the income of the petitioner has not been properly appreciated while awarding maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and 3 has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the father and the brother of the petitioner are not dependant on the petitioner. It has been submitted that petitioner owns two flats at Patna and from which there is a monthly rental income of Rs. 20,000/- to him apart from handsome salary which the petitioner draws from his post of Technician Grade-III in the Indian Railways. The net pay of the petitioner appears to Rs. 24,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that considering the fact that the opposite party No. 2 has merely started school and to maintain opposite party No. 2 and 3, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is perfectly justified. 5. It appears from the impugned order that the net salary of the petitioner is approximately Rs. 24,000/- per month. It further appears that the father of the petitioner is a pensioner and he does not seem to be dependant upon the petitioner. Considering such circumstances, the learned court below had awarded maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 which in my considered opinion does not necessitate any interference. Accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is dismissed.