CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ravi Kishore Chaudhary @ Bittu vs Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Choudhry

Patna High Court · Decided on 13 September 2019 · Citation: (2019) 09 PAT CK 0081

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 203 Of 2018, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 981 Of 2017
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 371 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.

2.

The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order dated 26.07.2017 passed in Maintenance Case No. 58 of 2013, by the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari awarding Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party, who is his wife and the minor son and for the period 16.05.2016 till 30.06.2017, Rs. 3,000/- as ad interim maintenance.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he earns only Rs. 5,000/- per month as salary and, thus, is not in a position to pay the amount fixed by the Court below. It was submitted that the petitioner was ready to keep the wife and the son with him but it is the opposite party who does not want to live with him. It was further submitted that the petitioner was ready to pay the maintenance for his son which should go directly into his account and for the wife, the amount be reduced.

4.

Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the petitioner is financially strong as his family owns oil mill and has also sufficient landed property. It was submitted that the petitioner, only to create a record, started filing income tax return from the year 2014-15 i.e., after filing of the maintenance case. It was further submitted that even the so called job of a salesman fetching Rs. 5,000/- per month is for taking a defence before the Court for frustrating the genuine demand of the opposite party. It was submitted that the defence witness no. 2 has stated in his cross-examination that the father of the petitioner was owner of the oil mill.

5.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the order impugned needs no interference. The same is well considered based on cogent reasons and correct appreciation of the materials as well as statement of witnesses. In fact, this Court was of the opinion that the amount be enhanced but has refrained from doing so.

6.

For reasons aforesaid, the application stands dismissed.