Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 305 (JHR)

Rajhans v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-09

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2016
ORDER : This revision is directed against the order dated 22.11.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in Criminal (D.V.) Case No. 40 of 2011, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay Rs.9,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 towards maintenance. Petitioner has further challenged the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2014, whereby on appeal made by the opposite party no. 2, he enhanced maintenance amount and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 for her maintenance as well as for the maintenance of her two children. 2. It appears that opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act for maintenance for herself as well as for the maintenance of her two children. In the said application, it is categorically stated that the opposite party no. 2 is the legally married wife of petitioner and out of the said wedlock, two children born. It is an admitted position that the salary of the petitioner is Rs. 29,480/-. After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 9,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 for maintenance. It is worth mentioning that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has not been challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal. Therefore, so far the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate is concerned, it becomes final, so far it relates to petitioner. In that view of the matter, the present revision application is not maintainable against the order dated 22.11.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara. 3. It further appears from the record that opposite party no. 2 namely Sarita Kumari Singh filed an appeal against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, so far it relates to quantum of maintenance. The Sessions Judge, after considering the salary of the petitioner, had enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- vide his order dated 29.01.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the mother, younger brother, uncle and aunt of the petitioner are residing with him, therefore, the quantum of the maintenance amount, awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is too high. Therefore, the same may be reduced. 5. 9,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- vide his order dated 29.01.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the mother, younger brother, uncle and aunt of the petitioner are residing with him, therefore, the quantum of the maintenance amount, awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is too high. Therefore, the same may be reduced. 5. On the other hand, Sri Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that now it is not open for the petitioner to raise aforesaid point. It is an admitted position that the salary of the petitioner is more than Rs. 29,000/-. Under the said circumstance, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Sessions Judge is not excessive. 6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. It appears from the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate that the contention of the petitioner has already been considered and rejected and the said order has become final. I have already said that the present revision is not maintainable, so far it relates to order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, because petitioner has not challenged the same. 7. Now coming to the impugned order, I find that it is admitted by the petitioner that his salary at the relevant time was Rs. 29,480/-. Under the said circumstance, the quantum of maintenance granted by the learned Sessions Judge is not excessive, as by the said amount opposite party no. 2 is required to maintain three persons. Thus, I find no merit in this revision. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.