JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

(2.) The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment/ order dtd. 19/1/2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai in Maintenance Case No. 46(M)/2012 by which petitioner was directed to pay the O.P. No. 2, a sum of Rs.30,000.00 per month. The payment of litigation cost Rs.5,000.00 lump-sum has also been directed to be made.

(3.) Counsel for petitioner submits that the ascertainment of earning of the petitioner has not been made correctly. He submits that the earning of petitioner is based on the rent amount which the petitioner used to collect from the house constructed by his own. Counsel for petitioner further submits that on the point of legality, propriety and correctness, he has nothing to say. His only argument is that amount of maintenance is at higher side.