Posted On by &filed under High Court, Patna High Court - Orders.


Patna High Court – Orders
Ashok Mishtry vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 November, 2011
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CR. REV. No.131 of 2009
         Ashok Mishtry, son of late Ganauri Mishtry, resident of village-
         Singhaul, P.S.- Muffasil Nawada, District- Nawada.
                                                          .............Petitioner
                                             Versus
             1.       The State of Bihar.
             2.       Urmila Devi, wife of Ashok Mishtry, resident of village-
                      Budhaul, P.S.- Nawada, District- Nawada.
                                                       .............Opposite Parties
                                           -----------

6. 21.11.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision

application against the order dated 27.09.2008 passed by

the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nawada in

Misc. Case No.11/2004/164/2006 by which the petitioner

has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-per month for

the maintenance of his wife, opposite party no.2 and his

minor sons and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is ready to maintain his wife and his two

sons, but she is not living with the petitioner. As such, she

is not entitled to get the maintenance under Section 125

Cr.P.C.

The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2

submits that the petitioner has assaulted his wife, the

opposite party no.2 for the fulfillment of the demand of
2

dowry and has dragged her out from his house after taking

her ornaments and other belonging and she has filed

Complaint Case No.446/2000 and the petitioner had to go

in jail in that case. The opposite party no.2 has no means

to support herself and her two minor sons, who are living

with her, whereas, the petitioner has sufficient means to

maintain her and her children. He has also arranged

another marriage. As such, the petitioner does not want to

live with him. He has further submitted that the amount of

maintenance is too meagre.

After hearing the learned counsel for both the

parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears

that it is admitted position that the petitioner is the

husband of opposite party no.2 and father of two minor

sons born out of their wedlock. Both the parties have led

their evidence in support of their case. It has been

considered by the learned trial court that due to some

reasons, the conjugal life between the petitioner and his

wife is frustrated and she is living separate with her sons.

The wife and minor sons are unable to maintain

themselves, whereas, the petitioner has sufficient means to

maintain them. Considering the facts and circumstances,
3

the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-

for the maintenance of three persons, wife and two sons,

which is not excessive.

Considering the facts and circumstances stated

above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the

impugned order. This petition is dismissed.

V.K. Pandey                         ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.134 seconds.