IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1173 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Rohtas

Ranjit Kumar Sah son of Gorkh Sah, Resident of Village – Lahurbari, P.S.-
Mohania, Dist.- Kaimur (Bhabua)

… … Petitioner
Versus
Nitu Devi wife of Ranjit Kumar Sah, daughter of Lalan Sah, at present
resident of village – Dumari, P.S.- Chenari, Dist.- Rohtas.

… … Respondent

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-08-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. In the instant application preferred under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner

has challenged the order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the learned

Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtas at Sasaram in

Maintenance Case No.66 of 2017 whereby he has directed the

petitioner to pay rupees four thousand per month as interim

maintenance to the respondent. It is not even from the date of

application.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that he is

working as a driver and has no other source of income. Though,

the respondent had demanded only rupees three thousand per

month as maintenance, the court below has directed him to pay
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1173 of 2019 dt.19-08-2019
2/3

rupees four thousand per month. The order itself would suggest

that the court below has passed the order mechanically without

application of judicial mind.

4. After hearing the petitioner and perusing the

materials on record, I find that there is no dispute to the factum

of marriage. The petitioner admits that he was married to the

respondent on 04.03.2016. Though, He has denied the

contention of the respondent that he forced her to leave the

matrimonial home, he admits that the respondent has filed a

complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against

him. The petitioner has also not disputed the claim of the

respondent that she has no independent source of income.

5. The court below took into consideration the

pleadings of the parties and awarded rupees four thousand per

month to the respondent as interim maintenance. The amount so

awarded is not on the higher side. The very object of granting

interim maintenance is to save the claimant from vagrancy and

destitution. In absence of any material to show that the

respondent was able to sustain herself, if the court below has

awarded rupees four thousand per month, as interim

maintenance, no illegality can be found with the order

impugned.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1173 of 2019 dt.19-08-2019
3/3

6. Since the order impugned is neither illegal

nor perverse, I am not inclined to interfere with the same in

exercise of jurisdiction under SectionArticle 227 of the Constitution of

India.

7. The application is dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Md. S/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 23.08.2019
Transmission Date 23.08.2019