Arun Ram (Sub. Inspector Rpf) Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. - Court Judgment |
| Criminal |
| Jharkhand High Court |
| Jan-16-2006 |
| Cr. Revision No. 453 of 2005 |
| N. Dhinakar, C.J. |
| I(2006)DMC784; [2006(1)JCR271(Jhr)] |
| Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 125 and 127 |
| Arun Ram (Sub. Inspector Rpf) |
| State of Jharkhand and anr. |
| Shailesh, Adv. |
| C.J. Sahay, APP. and; M.B. Lal, Adv. for opposite party No. 2 |
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988]
section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.ordern. dhinakar, c.j.1. the petitioner is the husband and he was ordered under section 127 of the code of criminal procedure to pay a sum of rs. 7.000/- per month to his wile, smt. reeta devi, who is the opposite party no. 2 in this revision.2. when the said petition was filed for enhancement of maintenance from rs. 1500/-to rs. 6000/-, the family court, while allowing the petition, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of rs. 7.000/-, hence, the revision.3. learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the very prayer of opposite party no. 2, smt. reeta devi, in the petition filed under section 127 of the code of criminal procedure is that she is entitled for enhanced maintenance at the rate of rs. 6.000/- per month and therefore, the family court was not justified in directing him to pay a sum of rs. 7.000/-.4. on the above contention, i have heard mr. m.b. lal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, who submits that he will have no objection if the sum of rs. 7,000/- awarded as maintenance is reduced to rs. 6,000/-, as prayed for by opposite party no. 2 in her petition under section 127, cr pc.5. taking into consideration the submissions of both.....
ORDER
N. Dhinakar, C.J.
1. The petitioner is the husband and he was ordered under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pay a sum of Rs. 7.000/- per month to his wile, Smt. Reeta Devi, who is the opposite party No. 2 in this revision.
2. When the said petition was filed for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 1500/-to Rs. 6000/-, the Family Court, while allowing the petition, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 7.000/-, Hence, the revision.
3. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the very prayer of opposite party No. 2, Smt. Reeta Devi, in the petition filed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that she is entitled for enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6.000/- per month and therefore, the Family Court was not justified in directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 7.000/-.
4. On the above contention, I have heard Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2, who submits that he will have no objection if the sum of Rs. 7,000/- awarded as maintenance is reduced to Rs. 6,000/-, as prayed for by opposite party No. 2 in her petition under Section 127, Cr PC.
5. Taking into consideration the submissions of both parties and in view of the prayer of the opposite party No. 2, I feel that order of Family Court enhancing the amount of Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 7000/- deserves to be modified and it is accordingly, modified. The petitioner is now directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month as maintenance to his wife, as prayed for by opposite party No. 2 in her petition under Section 125, Cr PC. The said amount of Rs. 6000/- will be deposited by the petitioner in the bank account of opposite party No. 2, if she has any account after taking the details from her as regards the account maintained by her in the bank, instead of paying the said amount through money order.
The revision is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.