1.Shobha Devi, aged 45 years, wife of Surendra Nath Sahu 2. Kanhaiya Gupta, Aged v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Surendra Nath Sahu, son of Hari Narayan Sahu
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 63 of 2022 With I.A. No. 905 of 2022 1.Shobha Devi, aged 45 years, wife of Surendra Nath Sahu 2. Kanhaiya Gupta, Aged 12 years, son of Surendra Nath Sahu, represented by his mother Sobha Devi Both Resident of Narsih Aashram Campus, P.O. Manoharpur, P.S. Manoharpur, P.S. Manoharpur, District- West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Surendra Nath Sahu, son of Hari Narayan Sahu, Resident of Vill- Sarjamdih, P.O. Sarjamdih, P.S. Tamar, District Ranchi, At present Resident of Pethiyabagi, P.O. Jainagar, P.S. Jainagar, District Koderma (Jharkhand) … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the O.P. No. 2 For the State
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Ajay Kumar Trivedi, Advocate : Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate : Ms. Sweta Singh, Advocate --- 07/22.02.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. “This revision application has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 29.06.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa passed in Original Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 2012 whereby the learned Principal Judge has been hold that Rs. 10,000/- per month maintenance allowance is sufficient for the revisionists. Further directed the opposite party No. 2 to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the Revisionist No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- per month maintenance allowance fixed out of Rs. 10,000/- till the attaining the majority of the Revisionist No. 2 since the date of filing of the application in the interest of justice. Further Revisionists prays for enhance the rate of maintenance as Rs. 23,200/- per month instead of Rs. 10,000/- per month on the basis of Indian Succession Act, 1925 in the interest of Justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is delay of 1264 days in filing the present revision application and the same could not be filed as the revision application filed by the 2 opposite party No. 2 being Cr. Revision No. 948 of 2016 challenging the order of maintenance was dismissed on 14.02.2020 and thereafter there was pandemic situation. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the merit of the case has submitted that although the claim for maintenance before the learned Family Court was only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- but the same was fixed as back as on 29.06.2016 and thereafter the salary of the opposite party has increased to Rs. 75,000/- per month and therefore the petitioners are seeking an appropriate order from this Court for maintenance of Rs. 23,200 per month instead of Rs. 10,000/-. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party while opposing the prayer for condonation of delay has submitted that the impugned order was passed on 29.06.2016 and the present proceeding has nothing to do with the Criminal Revision filed by the opposite party No. 2 in as much as the opposite party No. 2 was challenging the order of maintenance and the present Cr. Revision application has been filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount. She submits that petitioners, if so aggrieved, by the order dated 29.06.2016 passed in the maintenance case were required to file their independent revision application against the said order dated 29.06.2016 at the appropriate time so that both the revisions petitions could have been tagged and decided. The counsel submits that no ground for condonation of the delay has been made out. 6. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the opposite party submits that in order to seek enhancement of quantum of maintenance the petitioners have a remedy under Section 127 Cr. P.C., however in the affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 before this court it has been stated that the opposite party No. 2 is under suspension. 7. In response, the counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the suspension order of the opposite party No. 2 has already been revoked and therefore the present petition be allowed after condoning the delay. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute 3 that the petitioners had filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- out of which maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- was allowed vide order dated 29.06.2016 in Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. 9. The petitioners did not file any petition challenging the said order. Rather, the opposite party No. 2 challenged the said order dated 29.06.2016 in Cr. Revision No. 948 of 2016 which was dismissed on 14.02.2020. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioners having not challenged the order dated 29.06.2016 within the stipulated time cannot be permitted to refer to pendency of Cr. Revision No. 948 of 2016 filed by the opposite party No. 2 as a ground for condonation of delay in challenging the said order dated 29.06.2016 and dismissal of Cr. Revision No. 948 of 2016 filed by opposite party no.2 cannot be a ground for condonation of delay in filing the revision petitioner by the petitioners . Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to condone the enormous delay in filing the present revision application. I.A. No. 905 of 2022 is hereby dismissed. 10. This Court also finds that the petitioners are seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 23,200/- instead of Rs. 10,000/- as granted by the learned Family Court although at the appropriate time, a claim of Rs. 15,000/- was made. The reason for seeking enhancement is that the salary of the opposite party no. 2 has increased. This Court finds that in case of any development which takes place after passing of the order passed under Section 125 of Cr. P.C, the parties have appropriate remedy for modification/ reduction/ enhancement of maintenance in terms of section 127 Cr.P.C. and the present revision petition seeking enhancement of maintenance on account of developments, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, after passing the impugned order of maintenance is not maintainable. 11. Accordingly, this revision petition is also dismissed. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)