Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Patna High Court - Orders

Kalapnath Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 November, 2011

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    CR. REV. No.1616 of 2009
                   Kalapnath Singh, son of late Ram Ekbal Singh,
                  resident of village: Teliya, P.O.: Turkea, P.S.:
                  Kurhni, District: Muzaffarpur.
                                                        ... Petitioner.
                                                   Versus
                  1. The State Of Bihar
                  2. Pawan Devi, wife of Sri Kalapnath Singh,
                     daughter of Hirday Prasad Singh.
                  3. Sobha Kumari, son of Kalapnath Singh,
                  4. Bablu Kumar, son of Kalapnath Singh
                  5. Pooja Kumari, son of Kalapnath Singh
                     All residents of village : Telia P.S. Kurhni,
                     District- Muzaffarpur.
                                                .. Opposite Parties.
                                              -----------

2.   18.11.2011

The petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 23.6.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Maintenance Case No. 87 of 2004 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- only per month for the maintenance of his wife and three children opposite party nos. 2 to 5.

                               The    main        contention              of      learned

                   counsel     for    the     petitioner             is        that     the

                   petitioner    in    unable      to    pay     the           amount    of

maintenance due to his poor earning.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no. 2 2 and father of opposite party nos. 3 to 5 who are minor daughters and son. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their contention. Learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and thereafter he has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month for maintenance of opposite party nos. 2 to 5, which is not excessive for the maintenance of four persons.

                      Considering                  the       facts           and

          circumstances,          I    do    not    find    any     ground   to

          interfere     with           the     impugned       order.       This

          petition is dismissed.


Kanchan                               (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)