IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.1777 of 2009

======================================================

Shiv Kant Choudhary S/o Ganga Ram Choudhary @ Ganga Choudhary,

R/o village- Madhepur, P.S. Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur ( O.P. husband)

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Soni Devi W/o Shiv Kant Choudhary, R/o village- Madhepur, P.S.-

Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur, presently residing along with her father

in village- Shambhu Patti, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Samastipur

(Applicant/wife)

.... .... Opposite Party /s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra, Advocate

For the State of Bihar : Mr. Ajay Tiwary, A.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD

VERMA

ORAL ORDER

4

19-12-2012

By the impugned judgment and order dated 15th

October, 2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 149 of 2008 by the

learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur claim of

maintenance made by the opposite party no. 2 for herself and for

her minor daughter in terms of section 125 Cr.P.C. has been

allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance to

the opposite party no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month for

herself and for her minor daughter with effect from 1.10.2009.

From the findings recorded by the learned Family

Court it appears that the present petitioner filed his show

cause/written statement in the aforesaid maintenance case, but has

not disputed his relationship with the opposite party no. 2, being

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1777 of 2009 (4) dt.19-12-2012

2/3

his legally wedded wife, as also minor girl child, born out of their

wedlock. From the side of the claimant-opposite party no. 2, two

witnesses were examined in support of her claim for maintenance,

whereas the petitioner produced four witnesses in support of his

case.

However,

after

careful

examination

of

the

materials/evidence, the learned Family Court has come to a

finding that the petitioner is a rich person running a CHURA

MILL and he is also having landed properties, yet he was refusing

to maintain his wife and his minor daughter. Hence, he allowed

the claim of maintenance, as per the impugned order.

After having heard the parties, this Court does not find

any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity warranting any

interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction

in the impugned judgment allowing the claim of maintenance in

favour of the opposite party no. 2 and her minor child. The amount

of maintenance fixed by the learned Family Court at the rate of Rs.

1500/- per month for the opposite party no. 2 as also the minor girl

child cannot be said to be excessive by any standard taking into

consideration the present day price index.

In the result, the application fails and is, accordingly,

dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1777 of 2009 (4) dt.19-12-2012

3/3

Let this order be communicated to the learned Family

Court below forthwith.

RPS/-

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)