Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Prajapati vs Munni Devi on 6 September, 2017
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 743 of 2016
-----------
Suresh Prajapati, Son of Dukhan Prajapati, Resident of village-Tulbul,
P.O. Hardiya, P.O. Gomia, District-Bokaro. .......Petitioner
Versus
Munni Devi, Wife of Suresh Prajapati and daughter of Ganesh Pandit,
Resident of Sibandih, P.O. Ritudih, P.S. Marafari, District-Bokaro.
.....Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP
-----
03/6.9.2017. Heard the parties.
In this application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 26.4.2016, passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 47 of 2014 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder application preferred by the O.P. No. 2 under section 127 Cr.P.c. has been allowed and the amount of maintenance has been enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner earns a meager amount as a labour. It has further been submitted that petitioner does not have frequent work and the enhanced amount is beyond the capability of the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned A.P.P., has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner did not file show cause and had not taken efforts to examine himself in an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. and in such circumstances therefore enhanced amount is just and proper.
It appears that earlier an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed, in which by order dated 22.2.2006, petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to the O.P. No. 2. Subsequently, in the year 2014, an application was preferred by the O.P. No. 2 under section 127 Cr.P.C. which led to passing the impugned order dated 26.4.2016. It appears from the impugned order that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to file a show cause or to adduce evidence but the petitioner did not do so. It further appears from the evidence of father of the petitioner that the petitioner never sits idle. Considering such fact, amount of maintenance has been enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.
-2-There being no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 26.4.2016, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Rakesh/