High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Anugrah Kumar @ Munna vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 20 October, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Anugrah Kumar @ Munna vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 20 October, 2011
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                     CR. REV. No.315 of 2010
                  Anugrah Kumar @ Munna, s/o Krishna Mohan Thakur, Resident of
                  Mauza Asarhi, Police Station Tajpur, District Samastipur
                                                                    ...... Petitioner
                                                  Versus
                  1. The State of Bihar
                  2. Kavita Devi w/o Anugrah Kumar @ Munna residing at Chand
                     Chaura, Police Station Ujiarpur, District Samastipur
                                                               ..... Opposite Parties
                                                -----------

4. 20.10.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision

application u/s.19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the

order dated 25.8.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Samastipur in Maintenance case No.76 of

2007, by which he has been directed to pay a sum of

Rs.3000/- per month to his wife Kavita Devi, opposite party

no.2 for her maintenance.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is

already paying Rs.1500/- per month in Matrimonial (Divorce)

case No.67 of 2004 and again in this case he has been

directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- per month. The amount of

Rs.1500/- should be adjusted in this amount of Rs.3000/- per

month and he should not be asked to pay more than

Rs.3000/- per month.

Learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits

that Rs.1500/- per month has been given to the opposite party

no.2 in the Divorce case so long the Divorce case is pending

and that amount has been given for maintenance in the

Divorce case, which should not be adjusted in this case.
-2-

After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties

and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the

learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence

adduced on behalf of both the parties and has directed to pay

a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 as

maintenance by the petitioner. I do not find any ground to

interfere with the impugned order.

So far the amount of maintenance in the Divorce

case is concerned, that amount will be adjusted in the amount

of maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month as directed in the

Maintenance case.

This petition stands disposed of.

( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. )
Narendra/