Pokhan Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 1 August, 2016

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Pokhan Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 1 August, 2016

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr. Revision No. 159 of 2015
                                     -------
           Pokhan Mandal, S/o Jageshwar Mandal, Village- Kenari, P.O.-
           Taratand, P.S.- Ahilyapur, District- Giridih.      ... ... Petitioner
                                          Versus
           1. The State of Jharkhand
           2. Yashoda Devi, W/o Pokhan Mandal, D/o Bharat Mandal
           3. Doman Mandal
           4. Kiran Kumari
              Doman Mandal (minor) S/o Pokhan Mandal and Kiran Kumari
              (minor) D/o Pokhan Mandal represented through its guardian and
              mother Yashoda Devi. All resident of village Charakkhurd, P.O.-
              Charakkala P.S.- Tundi, District- Dhanbad     ... ... Opp. Parties
                                          -------
       CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                                          -------
           For the Petitioner      : Mr. Mahadeo Thakur, Advocate
           For the State           : Mr. Neru Mahto, A.P.P.
                                          -------
05/01.08.2016

Heard Mr. Mahadeo Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Neru Mahto, learned A.P.P. for the State.

This application is directed against the judgment dated 19.11.2014 passed in Maintenance Case No. 61 of 2010 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad by which a monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- each to both the children have been ordered to be paid.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is still ready and willing to keep the opposite party no. 2 with full dignity and honor. It has been submitted that the plea taken by the opposite party no. 2 with respect to keeping concubine is totally false and fabricated.

It appears from the impugned order that it has been noted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad from the evidence that the petitioner has kept a concubine in his house. There is a discreet admission of keeping a concubine. Such act on the part of the petitioner is sufficient cause for the opposite party no. 2 to stay separately. The quantum of maintenance which has been ordered does seem to be quite meager and is commensurate with the income of the petitioner. The impugned order thus having considered the factual aspects in its proper perspective does not require any interference. This application sans any merit, is hereby dismissed.

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court