….. Arjun Kumar Das … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Munni Kumar Das @ Munni Kumari 3. Sonam
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 40 of 2022 ….. Arjun Kumar Das …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Munni Kumar Das @ Munni Kumari 3. Sonam Kumari 4. Manviya Kumari …… Opp. Parties ----- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the State For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Swami Nath Prasad Rai, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate …… ORDER C.A.V. dated 09.11.2022 Pronounced on 17.02.2023 1. The instant Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 29.09.2021 passed in O. M. C. No. 189 of 2017 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda by which learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- to his wife i.e. opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,500/- each opposite party nos. 3 and 4 (daughters of opposite party no. 2) from the date of presentation of the case filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the O.P. No. 2, is that, she is legally married wife of the petitioner. The marriage of O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with the petitioner on 01.06.2012 in accordance with Hindu religion and customs and the parents of the O.P. No. 2 gifted many articles, jewellery and cash to the tune of about Rs. Two Lacs in the hands of the petitioner during the marriage. However after the marriage, in the year 2014, the petitioner (i.e. husband) was selected as a Constable in R.P.F. and 2 then his attitude and behaviour suddenly changed and he used to press and compel the O.P. No. 2 to bring further Rs. Two lakh cash and a motorcycle from her father as he was a Central Government Employee and deserved heavy dowry. In the course of time, her husband started committing mental and physical torture to the O.P. No. 2 to realize the dowry demand and obviously this led to troubles and restlessness to the O.P. No. 2 whose parents were not in a position to meet the new demand of the petitioner (i.e. husband). During this period, the O.P. No. 2 has been blessed with two daughters, namely Sonam Kumari and Manviya Kumari, from their wedlock. It is further case of the O.P. No. 2 that seeing constant trouble, the O.P. No. 2 informed her parents to rescue her, as her in-laws had confined her in the house and was not allowing her to move anywhere even to her parental house upon which her father, brothers and other relatives rushed to her matrimonial house and with the help of local police brought her to village Pipra along with her children where she is still taking shelter in state of grief and sorrow. It is further stated that her husband has been keeping a lady, namely Aruna with him at his posting place and is all set to marry with her shortly but he is neither ready to take the O.P. No. 2 with him, nor he maintaining the O.P. No. 2 and all the opposite parties are on verge of starvation and are hand to mouth for want of money. The opposite parties have no source of income and are unable to maintain themselves. The petitioner has vast income from salary and other sources like money- lending and the petitioner has a handsome monthly salary of about Rs. 40,000/- and at least Rs. 30,000/- per month also from money-lending. Therefore the wife- O.P. No.2 has prayed to allow Rs. 20,000/- per month maintenance allowance to all the three opposite parties from her husband i.e. the petitioner. 3 3. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 4. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that impugned Judgment is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to any maintenance in view of Section 125(4) of the Cr. P. C. as she is wilfully not residing with her husband without any valid cause and reason. It is submitted that the O.P. No. 2 is not the legally married wife and the O.P. No. 3 and 4 are not his children as there was no relation between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 as husband and wife for last five years, as such the children are illegitimate children. It is further submitted that the petitioner has never married with the O.P. No. 2 on his own will and neither any Barat or any assembling of guest of the village at the time of marriage nor there was any negotiation before solemnization of marriage nor any rituals were done and hence, the marriage between the petitioner and the O.P-. No.2 is not a valid marriage. It is further submitted that the O.P. No. 2 is entangled with another person in her village as a result of which she has given birth to two daughters and the petitioner has no any concern with them. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed a divorce petition on 4.11.2017 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj bearing Case No. 223/2017, which is pending before the said learned court. It is submitted that the petitioner is also willing to keep his wife and children with full honour and dignity during the pendency of this case. However, opposite party no. 2 has refused to live with him on the ground of danger to her life and as such, the opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to any maintenance. It is submitted that at time of hearing of maintenance case, the petitioner was earning Rs. 24,000/- per month. However, learned 4 Court below had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- to his wife i.e. opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,500/- each opposite party nos. 3 and 4 (daughters of opposite party no. 2) from the date of presentation of the case filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C., although, the petitioner has to maintain himself and his old aged father and mother and his unemployed brother, who is aged about 16 years. It is submitted that opposite party no. 2 is earning Rs. 6,000/- month by doing sewing work etc. It is submitted that the learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence of opposite party no. 2 properly and has not discussed the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that the evidence D.W.-1 namely Sanni Kumar and D.W.-2 namely Arjun Kumar Das have not been properly appreciated by the learned Court below and which resulted into the miscarriage of justice and as such the judgement passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law and may be set aside in the interest of justice and this Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2022 may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgement passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the Applicant- wife-O. P. No. 2 has fully supported the case in her maintenance case. It is further submitted that witnesses of the Wife- O.P. No.2 have also submitted that the petitioner has ousted the O.P. No. 2 although her children from her matrimonial home and the opposite party no. 2 along with her children are fully dependent on her old aged parents and as such, the criminal revision application may be dismissed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P., has further submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is 5 required from this Court. It is submitted that opposite party no. 2 is the legally married wife of this petitioner and opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are own daughters of the petitioner, but the petitioner is illegally refusing to maintain them. It is submitted that the petitioner has performed second marriage in the year 2017 with one Sweety Kumari daughter of Dilip Ravidas resident of Mahmood Chowk Koriatoli, Katihar (Bihar) and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has enclosed marriage photographs showing the picture of the petitioner along with father in-law and mother in-law of his second wife also and second wife of the petitioner. It is further submitted that even one child is born to the petitioner from his second wife and in course of the argument, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has placed reliance upon one photograph enclosed as Annexure-2 in the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 has been subjected to mental cruelty and has been ousted from the matrimonial home by the petitioner after getting employment in CRPF. It is submitted that P. W. -4 is one Rita Kumari and she has fully supported the maintenance case filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and during her evidence before Family Court. It is further submitted that P. W. -1 namely Deepak Kumar Das (i.e. brother of the opposite party no. 2), P.W.-2 namely Gopal Das (i.e. brother of the opposite party no. 2), and P.W.-4, Rita Kumari have supported the case of the opposite party no. 2 and they have stated that the O.P. No.2 has been ousted from her matrimonial home by the petitioner after the petitioner was selected as Constable in CRPF and they have supported the allegation of demand of dowry. It is submitted that P.W.-1, Deepak Kumar and P.W.- 2, Gopal Das have also supported the case of the O.P. No.2 that the petitioner has married with one Sweeti Kumari. It is submitted that the petitioner is earning more than Rs 60,000/- per month and as such, the 6 impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below may be upheld and this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 7. Perused the Lower Court Records and the impugned judgement passed by the learned Court below and considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides. 8. It transpires that opposite party no. 2 is legally married wife of the petitioner and the marriage of O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with the petitioner on 01.06.2012 9. It further transpires that opposite party no. 2 had filed Original Maintenance Case No. 189 of 2017 under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month for herself and her two minor daughters from this petitioner on 23.11.2017 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda. . 10. It transpires that petitioner had appeared and filed his show cause and has stated that the petition filed by the Applicant No. 1 – O. P. No. 2 is not maintainable and they have no Cause of action to file this application. It is further stated that the opposite party was married to the petitioner forcibly on the threats of a revolver by the brothers and relatives of the Applicant No. 1-O. P. No. 2 and this marriage was not accepted by the opposite party-husband- petitioner on his will. It is a real fact that the said opposite party had gone to a Barat near the residence of Applicant No.-1- O. P. No. 2, then her brother and other persons forcibly got him married with the O.P. No.2 at the threats of a revolver at her residential house of village Pipra, P.S. Pathargama, District- Godda and there is no chance to give any dowry in favour of opposite party during the marriage time. It has been stated that after selection of the opposite party as a constable in the R.P.F. he used to pressurize and compel the Applicant No.-1- O. P. No. 2to bring Rs. Two lacs cash and 7 Motorcycle from her father but as a matter of fact, the opposite party had not led a peaceful conjugal life, and the O. P. No. 2 not even came to her sasural at her in-law's house. After marriage, the opposite party-petitioner had not gone to his sasural at village - Pipra because he has been engaged in a private job in Delhi. The petitioner (i.e. O.P. No.2) is not the legally married wife, and both the babies are not the result of cohabiting with the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and there is no relation as a husband and wife since five years, and as such baby are illegitimate children. Several other pleas had also been taken on the behalf of the petitioner, which have been discussed by the learned Court below on record. 11. Applicant – O.P. No. 2 (i.e. wife) has got examined Four (04) Witnesses in support of her case, who are as follows:- (i) P.W. -1 is Deepak Kumar Das, (ii) P.W.-2 is Gopal Das, (iii) P.W.-3 is Munni Kumari Das, and (iv) P.W.-4 is Rita Devi 12. The petitioner has also got examined Five (05) Witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) D.W.-1 is Sanni Kumar, (ii) D.W.-2 is Arjun Kumar Das, (iii) D.W.-3 is Sarjun Kumar, (iv) D.W.-4 is Mahendra Ravidas, and (v) D.W.-5 is Ramji Yadav 13. However, no document has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on the point of Income. 14. It transpires from the Lower Court Record that the petitioner has filed one Guardianship Case No. 10 of 2019 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhaglapur on 03.09.2019 for taking the custody of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 8 (i.e. the daughter of the petitioner and the O.P. No.2). 15. It further transpires from the record that the petitioner although himself admitted that he is working as Constable in CRPF and drawing Rs. 22,500/- per month. However, learned Court below has not taken any care to ascertain the exact Income of the petitioner, who is an employee in the Central Government and the learned Court below could have assessed the actual Income and net salary of the petitioner by taking necessary steps, even if the opposite party no. 2 was unable to produce the salary certificate of the petitioner. 16. It is evident from the record that on the one hand the petitioner is trying to take custody of his two daughters (i.e. O.P. No.3 and O.P. No.4) from opposite party no. 2 by filing Guardianship Case No. 10 of 2019 and on the other hand, he is denying the paternity of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 by saying that they are his illegitimate daughters. 17. So far as oral evidence is concerned, P.W.-3, Munni Kumari Das is the Applicant-O. P. No. i.e. wife of the petitioner and she has fully supported her case by stating that she is the legally wedded wife of this petitioner and has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2012 and out of their wedlock, she has given birth to two daughters namely Sonam Kumari and Manvi Kumari with the petitioner. She has further stated that the petitioner is working as a Constable in RPF police and is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month salary and having landed property (agricultural land) and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month from lending (Mahajani). However, the petitioner is not paying anything for her maintenance and her two children. During her cross-examination, she has stated that she is a poor person and she is fully dependent upon her parents, who are also maintaining her brother and her sister. She has also stated that 9 she cannot produce any paper of agricultural land of the petitioner. This witness was further examined and cross-examined on recall on 29.11.2019 and she has stated that her husband has married with one Sweeti Kumari and she has obtained some photographs from the facebook and she has also named one Dilip Ravidas, father of the said Sweeti Kumari and she has stated that she was physically and mentally tortured. She has also stated that although she is not aware of the name of the mother of Sweeti Kumari, but the said Sweeti Kumari is resident of Village-Koriya Tola, D.S. College, Katihar. She has denied her illicit relationship with her brother in- law. However, on being confronted on the photograph of four persons from the side of this petitioner in the Court below, she has also stated that Sweeti Kumari i.e. second wife of the petitioner and her parents are standing in the said photograph and which she has obtained from the Facebook. She has denied to give tuition to the children and for earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Thus, scrutinizing from the evidence of P.W.-3, it is evident that she is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the petitioner has not confronted her on the question of forceful marriage by showing the pistol under threat and coercion by her brother. 18. P. W. – 1 is Deepak Kumar Das, who is the brother of the opposite party no. 2 and he has fully supported the case of the wife- opposite party no. 2 and he has stated that the petitioner has been married with the opposite party no. 2 i.e his sister in the year 2012 itself and her sister has given birth to two child from this petitioner and whose names are Sonam Kumari and Manvi Kumari. He also stated that her sister has remained in matrimonial home for around two and half years. However, she has been ousted by her husband i.e. the petitioner. During his cross-examination, he has stated that the petitioner is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month 10 from lending (Mahajani). He has denied that the opposite party no. 2 is earning Rs. 5,000/- from tuition and Rs. 5,000/- from sewing work. Thus, P.W.-1, Deepak Kumar Das, has supported the case of opposite party no. 2 (i.e. wife) and the petitioner failed to suggest any name of children taking tuition and any customer of sewing work with regard to earning by the O. P. No. 2. 19. P. W. – 2 is Gopal Das, who is the brother of the opposite party no. 2 and he has fully supported the case of the opposite party no. 2 and he has stated that the petitioner was married with the opposite party no. 2 i.e his sister in the year 2012 itself and her sister has given birth to two child from this petitioner and whose names are Sonam Kumari and Manvi Kumari. He also stated that her sister has remained in matrimonial home for around two and half years. However, she has been ousted by her husband i.e. the petitioner. However during his cross-examination, he has stated that the petitioner is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month from lending (Mahajani). He has also denied that the opposite party no.2 is earning Rs. 5,000/- from tuition and Rs. 5,000/- from sewing work (as the petitioner failed to suggest any name of children taking tuition and any customer of sewing work). Thus, P. W. – 2, Gopal Das, has also supported the case of the P.W.-3, Munni Kumari Das i.e. the wife of the petitioner and O.P. No. 3 and O.P. No. 4 are the daughters of the petitioner. 20. P.W. -4 is one Rita Devi and who is the independent witness and is a social worker. She has stated that the petitioner is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month and the petitioner got employed in the year 2014 and she has fully supported the case of the opposite party no. 2-wife and has stated that the O. P. No. 2 has married with this petitioner in the year 2012 as per Hindu Religion and 11 after marriage O. P. No. 2 went her matrimonial home. She has also stated that the petitioner was given cash, palang, cloth, chain and jewelleries. She has stated that after marriage, the applicant- wife-O. P. No. 2 remained in her matrimonial home for around 2-3 years and has given birth to two daughters aged about 4 years and 2 years. However, after getting job, the petitioner started assaulting his wife and the petitioner has joined as Sepoy in Railways. She has stated that the petitioner started demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- cash and one Motorcycle from the applicant-O. P. No. 2 and due to non- fullfilment of same, she was assaulted and ousted and the O. P. No. 2 is living in her maike for last ten months and not doing any work and her parents are poor. She has also further stated that the petitioner is drawing Rs. 40,000/- per month as salary and also earning Rs. 50,000/- per month from agriculture. However, the petitioner is not paying any maintenance to the O. P. No. 2. During cross-examination, she has stated that she is involved in politics and her house is situated near the house of the applicant-O. P. No. 2 and she is well acquainted with the family of the applicant-O. P. No. 2. She has shown ignorance that Hari Dash is the Fufa of the petitioner and the said Hari Das has got one son Rabidas and elder sister of the applicant of the O. P. No. 2 has performed with one Subodh Das, who is the son of Hari Das. Thus, she has supported the case of the applicant-O. P. No. 2. 21. Therefore, it is evident from the deposition of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 namely Deepak Kumar Das, Gopal Das and Rita Devi respectively that they have not confronted on the point of forceful marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 on the point of pistol or under any coercion. 22. D.W.-1, Sunny Kumar is the brother of the petitioner and he has stated that the petitioner was married with the opposite party 12 no. 2, seven to eight year ago. The opposite party no. 2 has remained in her sasural for few days and again fled away and is living in her Maike. He has stated that opposite party no. 2 has got two child. During cross-examination, he has stated that he is not aware that as to where does the petitioner is doing work. He has denied the suggestion that the petitioner is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month from the agricultural land. During further cross-examination, he has admitted in para-17 that marriage between the parties was solemnized seven years ago. He has also denied the suggestion that the opposite party no. 2 has instituted a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code upon the petitioner. He has denied the suggestion that the petitioner is working in “Nawgachhia” and has shown ignorance of the salary of the petitioner. He has denied the suggestion that petitioner has performed marriage with Sweeti Kumari illegally and having illicit relation with her. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D.W.-1, Sanni Kumar is own brother of the petitioner, who had admitted the marriage between the petitioner and O. P. no. 2, but he has evaded to show employment of the petitioner by stating that he is not aware as to where the petitioner is working however he has admitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 was consumed and thus, evidence of the D.W.-1 cannot be relied upon on the allegation of forceful marriage. However, from the evidence of D.W.-1, it is evident that the petitioner has performed marriage with the opposite part no. 2 seven years ago and two daughters have been born from their marital wedlock. 23. D.W.-2, Arjun Kumar Das is the petitioner himself. During his examination in chief, he has stated that he has 13 performed marriage with the opposite party no. 2 in the year 2012 and the applicant i.e. the opposite party no.2 remained in her matrimonial home properly for a few days. Thereafter her behavior was changed and she started going to her maike and she is not paying respect to his parents and not keeping good behavior with them and he had tried to bring her back for restoring conjugal life but she did not come. Thereafter, he has instituted a case for divorce against her in Sahibganj and in which she appeared and later on started living with him and the case was closed and thereafter the opposite party no.2 started living again in her maike and she has got illicit relationship with other boys. He has stated that the opposite party no. 2 is doing sewing work and earning some money and maintaining her child and he is not aware that the child belonged to whom. He further stated during his cross-examination at para-15 and 16 that he got job four years ago and is getting salary Rs. 22,500/- per month and he can produce the pay slip and he is doing job in Sonepur Zone. He has stated at para-18 that he had not taken Barati in his marriage, rather the marriage was performed forcibly. However, after the marriage, a panchayati was done by Mukhia, but no paper of panchayati was prepared. He has stated at para-23 that opposite party no. 2 remained with him for few days as a husband and wife. He has stated that the opposite party no. 2 is not paying respect to his parents. In para-32 and 33, he has denied the suggestion for being father of two daughters. On being shown photograph, he has identified himself in the photo but has denied to identify the girl, who was standing beside him in the said photograph. He has denied the suggestion at para-36 for performing 2nd marriage in the year 2017. He has claimed that applicant i.e. the opposite party no. 2 is having illicit relationship with her jija Subodh Das, but he cannot give any 14 evidence in support of the same. He has denied for DNA Test of two daughters in para-57 of his evidence. He has denied the suggestion for performing second marriage. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D.W.-2, Arjun Kumar Das, it is evident that he is the husband of the Applicant- opposite party no. 2 and their marriage was performed in the year 2012, even he has taken false plea during his evidence that his marriage was performed under threat and coercion. He has failed to disclose the names of the boys with whom he has alleged that his wife is having illicit relationship. 24. D.W.-3, Sarjun Kumar is the brother of this petitioner. He has stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 has been solemnized in the year 2012 forcibly and she remained in her sasural for one and half years and thereafter, she went to her maike and she did not come after much persuasion and as such, the petitioner was compelled to file the case in Sahebganj and the opposite party no. 2 has filed this case only to harass this petitioner. During cross-examination, he has stated that opposite party no. 2 is his Bhabhi. She is having two children. He has stated that his brother got job four years ago, but he is not aware with regard to his salary nor his brother informed the same in this regard. He has denied the suggestion that his brother is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month and also earning Rs. 30,000/- per month from other sources. He has denied the suggestion that the petitioner has performed 2nd marriage. 25. During his further cross-examination, on recall, on 13.05.2019, he has denied identifying the photographs in which he was confronted that the petitioner was being seen as ‘Bridegroom’ along with one Sweeti Kumari, who is the ‘Bride’ in marriage dress. He had admitted the photograph attached with the record but 15 he has also denied the suggestion that said photograph has been snapped by Sweety Kumari in Bride’s dress with the petitioner. Thus from scrutinizing the evident of D.W.-3 Sarjun Kumar, it is evident that he is own brother of the petitioner and is concealing the fact of 2nd marriage and hence his evidence is not reliable. 26. Although, the learned Court below has assessed the income of the petitioner as Rs. 22,500/- on the basis of oral evidence of D.W.-2, Arjun Kumar Das i.e. this petitioner. However, this fact cannot be denied that despite having best evidence available, he could not get income certificate of this petitioner. Although the learned Court below has granted quantum of maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2-Munni Kumar Das and Rs. 2,500/- each to the opposite party no. 3- Sonam Kumari and opposite party no. 4- Manviya Kumari, but it is a fact that the petitioner is working as Constable in RPF and he has concealed his real income from the learned Court below as he has himself stated and disclosed that he is getting Rs. 22,500/-but did not file his pay slip and has concealed his real income from the learned Court below and as such, it can be presumed that he is earning more than Rs. 22,500/-. 27. It is further evident that the petitioner has filed Guardianship Case No. 10 of 2019 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur for taking custody of his two daughters on the one hand and on the other hand he is denying his paternity on his two daughters. 28. D.W.-3, Sarjun Kumar, who is brother of the petitioner and he has stated during his evidence that the petitioner was married with the opposite party no. 2 in the year 2012, but the marriage was performed forcibly and opposite party no. 2 remained in her matrimonial home for around 1and ½ years then 16 she went to her maike and they have tried several times, but she did not return, then the petitioner has filed the case at Sahebganj. He has also stated that opposite party no. 2 is doing work and is earning Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 7000/- per month. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that the applicant-opposite party no. 2 is his Bhabhi and has got two children. He has also admitted that the petitioner has got job four years ago, but he is not aware of his salary and the petitioner has not disclosed about his salary to anyone. He has denied the performing of 2nd marriage by the petitioner. He has also stated that they have got a house at only one place and there is no other house except one. He has denied the suggestion that his brother (i.e. the petitioner) is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month. On being shown photograph attached with the records, he has denied suggestion as the petitioner (i.e. the husband) is in marriage dress with one other lady. In his further cross-examination at para-2 and 3, he has also denied the suggestion that the petitioner has got photograph in marriage dress with the lady Sweety Kumari and in the left side father of Sweeti Kumaring is standing and the right side wife of Dilip Kumar is standing. He has also denied the suggestion that photograph enclosed in the records showing the petitioner with Sweeti Kumari having Vermilion on her head and the petitioner is standing. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D.W.-3, Sarjun Kumar, it is evident that he has also admitted the marriage between the petitioner and the O. P. No. 2, but he is giving false statement on the point of second marriage of the petitioner with Sweeti Kumari, although he had been shown photographs of this petitioner –Dilip Kumar with 2nd wife Sweeti Kumari. 29. D.W.-4 is the Mahendra Ravidas, who is the Maternal Uncle of this petitioner and has stated that the marriage between 17 the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 was performed forcibly and although he has stated during his evidence and after marriage the opposite party no. 2 had remained in matrimonial home for around one year and she used to flee away. He has also stated that the petitioner wanted to get back his wife and children, but the opposite party no. 2 has refused. However, during his cross-examination, he has stated that the petitioner is working in Railways and is getting Rs. 24,000/- per month. He has also admitted that they had not filed any case for dissolution of Marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. He has denied the suggestion that the opposite party no. 2 has got two children. On being shown two photographs attached with the records, this witness i.e. D.W.-4 has identified the petitioner (i.e. the husband) but he could not identify the lady shown in two photograph. Thus, scrutinizing the evidence of D.W.-4, Mahendra Ravidas, it is evident that he has also admitted the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and has tried to support the case of the petitioner, but during his cross-examination, he has admitted that the petitioner had got job in Railway and surprisingly he failed to identify the lady shown in the photograph with this petitioner, which clearly shows that the D.W.-4, Mahendra Ravidas is giving false evidence by influence of this petitioner to save him from performing 2nd marriage with Sweeti Kumari and however he has shown unawareness with the photograph of the girl one Sweeti Kumari with this petitioner. Thus, evidence of D.W.-4, Mahendra Ravidas is not reliable. 30. D.W.-5 is Ramji Yadav, who appears to be tutored witness. During his evidence, he has stated that marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 was performed forcibly and thereafter the opposite party no. 2 left her matrimonial home 18 and a panchayati was held. However, he has admitted that two daughters were borne out of wedlock of both the sides. However, he has stated that the opposite party no. 2 is giving tuition in her maike and also is doing sewing work and is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, during cross-examination, he has stated that he has not gone in the marriage of the petitioner, which was performed with another lady in the year 2019. He showed unawareness about the institution of divorce case by the petitioner against the opposite party no. 2 in Sahebganj. However, during cross-examination, he has stated that he is not aware about the person of the village, who has disclosed before him that the opposite party no. 2 (i.e. the wife of the petitioner) is giving tuition to the children. Thus scrutinizing the evidence of D.W.-5, Ramji Yadav, it is evident that he is a ‘tutored witness’ and also he is not aware about the name of the person from whom, he learnt that the opposite party no.2-wife is giving tuition and as such, the evidence of D.W.-5, Ramji Yadav is also not reliable. 31. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, the same to be decided as per the mandate of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324. 32. It has been held in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 at Para-77, 78, 79, 80, 112 and 113 as follows:- “Para-77:- The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. Para-78:- The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; 19 whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] Para-79:- In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. Para-80:- On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339] Para-112:- In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51] , the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. The Court held : (SCC p. 196, para 13) “13.3. … purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.” Para-113:- It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.” 20 33. It has been held in the case of Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs Anil Kachwaha reported in 2014 (16) SCC 715 at para 7, 8 and 10 as follows:- “Para-7:- Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant-wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance. Para-8:- The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant- wife is well qualified, having post graduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from respondent. In our considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. Para-10:-The impugned order of the High Court dated 26.06.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 2303/2007 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the appellant-wife as ordered by the Family Court and also pay the arrears of maintenance payable to the appellant-wife within the period of eight weeks.” 34. It transpires that learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda, has disbelieved the evidence of D.W.-1, Sanni Kumar , D.W.-2, Arjun Kumar Das, D.W.-3, Sarjun Kumar, D.W.-4, Mahendra Ravidas and D.W.-5, Ramji Yadav. 35. From perusal of the Lower Court Records, it would also appear that certain photographs showing the petitioner standing with one lady (i.e. Sweeti Kumari) were produced during the 21 evidence of D.W.-1, Sanni Kumar, D.W. 3- Sarjun Kumar and D.W.-4, Mahendra Ravidas and they had flatly denied the name of Sweeti Kumari, who was shown in the photograph with her as the petitioner has performed marriage with her. 36. Thus, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below while passing the impugned judgment and the learned Court below has rightly directed the petitioner for payment of maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- to his wife i.e. opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,500/- each opposite party nos. 3 and 4 (daughters of opposite party no. 2) from the date of presentation of the case i.e. from the date of filing of the case on 23.11.2017 filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. 37. Thus, it is evident that the judgment dated 29.09.2021 passed in O. M. C. No. 189 of 2017 by Sri Rajesh Sharan Singh, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda by which learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance is well discussed and reasoned order and a speaking one and as such, no interference is required from this Court and as such the judgment dated 29.09.2021 passed in O. M. C. No. 189 of 2017 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda is upheld. 38. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2022 is dismissed, however, without any costs. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Court blow at once by FAX. Kamlesh/ (Sanjay Prasad, J.)