IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1127 of 2009
Prabhawati Devi, wife of Sri Ramayan Sharma, permanent resident of
Bijauli, P.S.-Rajpur, District- Buxar, at present resident of Viratnagar, Buxar,
West of Government Buniyadi School, Buxar, P.S.-Buxar Town, Ward No.6,
District- Buxar.
Versus
Janateshwar Sharma, son of Sri Ramayan Sharma, presently resident of
Viratnagar, Buxar, West of Government Buniyadi School, Buxar, P.S.-Buxar
Town, District- Buxar.
-----------
4. 19.07.2011 The petitioner has preferred this revision
application against the order dated 28.06.2008 passed by learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Buxar in Maintenance Case No.9
(M)/2006 by which the petitioner has only been granted
Rs.700/-per month as maintenance from her son, opposite party.
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on
behalf of opposite party even after service of notice.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that opposite party namely, Janateshwar Sharma is
the only son of the petitioner. He works as Contractor and he
used to take the contract work. He further submits that the
income of the opposite party has not been assessed properly.
Monthly income of the opposite party is Rs.15000/-per month.
P.W.2 is the sister of petitioner, who has stated that the Opposite
party earned Rs.15000/-. P.W. 3 Lalita Devi is the sister in law
of the petitioner, who has stated that opposite party has
2
sufficient means for maintenance of the petitioner. O. P.W. I is
the brother in law (Sala) of the opposite party. He has also said
that the opposite party is only son of his parents. In the cross
examination, he has stated that the opposite party has purchased
land in favour of his sister (the wife of the opposite party) at
Naya Bazar, Buxar. The opposite party lives in the house
constructed at the bank of the canal which had been purchased
by the petitioner. He has further submitted that the maintenance
amount is too meagre for her maintenance. As such, the amount
of maintenance should be enhanced so that the petitioner could
survive.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner
and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. It
further appears that the amount of maintenance is too meagre for
the subsistence of the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances as stated
above, the amount of maintenance is enhanced to a sum of
Rs.1200/-per month.
With the aforesaid modification in the impugned
order, this petition stands disposed of.
V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)