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 0, Cited by 1]

Gauhati High Court

Rupak Kumar Deka vs Jaymati Deka on 27 May, 2019

Author: Suman Shyam

Bench: Suman Shyam

                                                                                  Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010114452019




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Crl.Rev.P. 213/2019

             1:RUPAK KUMAR DEKA
             S/O. LT. NARENDRA NATH DEKA, R/O. KHARGHULI, UDYGIRI PAHAR, P.O.
             KHARGHULI, P.S. LATASIL, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM-781004.

             VERSUS

             1:JAYMATI DEKA
             W/O. LT. NARENDRA NATH DEKA, R/O. KHARGHULI, UDAYGIRI PAHAR,
             P.O. KHARGHULI, P.S. LATASIL, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM-781004.

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P K DEKA

Advocate for the Respondent :




                                    BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

                                           ORDER

27.05.2019 Heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court - II, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Misc. Case No.469/2017 arising out of F.C.(Crl.) Case No.150/2009 whereby the learned court below has enhanced the maintenance allowance to be paid to the mother of the petitioner from Rs.1000/- to Rs.3500/- per month.

Page No.# 2/2 It appears from the record that the order dated 26.03.2019 has been passed after hearing the petitioner's counsel. It further appears that the petitioner is drawing a net salary of Rs.27,880/- per month. Although the petitioner's counsel has submitted that the mother of the petitioner has an independent source of income from family pension, yet, there is nothing on record to indicate a to what amount, if any, is being received by the respondent on account of family pension.

After going through the impugned order as well as the materials available on record, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order.

Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant