High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 01 JH CK 0058

Suleman Sheikh vs Numeda Khatoon & Anr

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 6 January 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
CASE NUMBER
1392 of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 350 words

I.A. No.4637 of 2017

1.

This application has been filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 2 days in filing the criminal revision.

2.

Having been satisfied with the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application, the delay of 2 days in filing the criminal revision is hereby,

condoned.

I.A. No.4637 of 2017 is disposed of.

Cr. Rev. No.1392 of 2015

3.

Heard the parties.

4.

This application is directed against the judgment dated 29.07.2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar in Cr. Misc.

Case No.148 of 2009, by which application preferred by Opp. Party No.1 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has

been directed to make monthly maintenance of Rs.2000/- to the Opp. Party No.1 and Rs.1,000/- to the Opp. Party No.2.

5.

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 are residing with the petitioner. It has also been stated

that considering the said fact, the order imposing maintenance allowance be set aside.

6.

The petitioner, in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was examined as P.W.3, in which he has admitted the marital relationship with

Opp. Party No.1 and the son having been born out with the said relationship. This witness has further accepted that he has solemnized another

marriage.

7.

On consideration of the evidence of the petitioner given before the court below and on assessment of the income of the petitioner, meager

amount of Rs.3000/- per month in total has been awarded in favour of Opp. Party Nos. 1 and 2. Although it has been stated by learned counsel

for the petitioner that the Opp. Party No.1 and 2 are staying with the petitioner, but there is nothing on record to suggest such fact.

8.

Be that as it may, the impugned order dated 29.07.2015 has considered in detail the evidence of both the sides and, thereafter, the order

granting maintenance allowance of Rs.3000/-in total, was passed in favour of the Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2.

9.

I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is, accordingly,dismissed.