Pusia Devi, wife of Gobardhan Mahto, daughter of late Baburam Mahto, resident of village v. Gobardhan Mahto, son of late Paras Mahto, resident of village Rakuwa, Tola Butgorwa, PO
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 103 of 2023 Pusia Devi, wife of Gobardhan Mahto, daughter of late Baburam Mahto, resident of village Rakuwa, Tola Butgorwa, PO Sutri, PS Gola, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand) at present resident of village Hullu, PO Sangrampur, PS Gola, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand) ... … Petitioner Versus Gobardhan Mahto, son of late Paras Mahto, resident of village Rakuwa, Tola Butgorwa, PO Sutri, PS Gola, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand) … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ------- : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mahto, Advocate For the Petitioner For the OP : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate ------ Order No. 10/Dated: 25 th July, 2024 The present criminal revision is arising out of the order dated 25.11.2022 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.14 of 2017 by the learned Principal District Judge, Ramgarh by which Original Maintenance Case No.14 of 2017 has been dismissed. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner has filed Original Maintenance case no. 14 of 2017 before the court of learned Principal District Judge, Ramgarh with allegation that the petitioner is legally married wife of the opposite party. Their marriage was solemnized 20 to 25 years ago
Legal Reasoning
according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage the parents of the petitioner gave dowry as per their capacity. After marriage, some days she lived at her matrimonial home peacefully, thereafter, OP and his elder brother started demanding Rs. 40,000/- as additional dowry and a motor pump. When she refused she was tortured mentally and physically by the OP and his family members. The OP also deprived the petitioner from fooding, clothing etc. but she remained at her matrimonial home. The relation between husband and wife became strained due to behaviour of the OP. When the petitioner could not fulfill the demand of OP, she was tortured physically and mentally and ousted from her matrimonial home. When the OP did not take care of her since long, she voluntarily reached at her matrimonial home where her husband assaulted her and in this regard a Panchyati was convened, in which the OP agreed to keep the petitioner at her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the OP again started demanding dowry on the instigation of his brother and sister-in-law. On 15.09.2014 in the evening she was assaulted by her husband -2- badly and on the same day at about 10:00 pm, when she had gone to fetch water from a well then the OP pushed her in the well with intention to kill her but on hulla nearby persons came and save the petitioner. The matter was also reported to the police by the petitioner upon which Gola PS Case No. 154/2014 registered against OP and after lodging of FIR, the petitioner started living at her parents home. The father of the petitioner already died and mother of the petitioner is maintaining herself by daily wages work. The mother of the petitioner is unable to maintain the petitioner and the petitioner has no source of income to maintain herself. Whenever she demanded maintenance from the OP, he abused and assaulted her badly. The OP is a man of means and he is a farmer, he earns Rs. 80,000/- per annum from agriculture as well as Rs. 60,000/- from Maze, Potato and green vegetables. He is also earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from ration shop and Rs. 15,000/- per month from rice mill as well as Rs. 15,000/- per month from flour mill. Hence, a sum of Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month may be allowed in favour of the petitioner. 3. During the proceedings, four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the petitioner who have fully supported the case of the petitioner. On behalf of the opposite party two witnesses have been examined. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the evidence of the defence witnesses it is apparent that the opposite party never tried to bring back his wife which clearly shows that he is not interested to keep his wife. As per evidence of opposite party, the petitioner has falsely told that the respondent is impotent and by showing that reason she has been living in her parent's house but the opposite party has not shown any document to prove that he is not impotent. The reason of impotency of husband is also a genuine reason for a wife to live separately from the husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Vijay Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar and others” reported in (2004)5 SCC 196 and in the case of “Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan and another” reported in (1981)4 SCC 250. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer made in the present criminal revision and submitted that ground of impotency has not come either in the petition or in the evidence of the -3- witnesses. As per paragraph no. 13 of the deposition of PW-4, who is the petitioner herself, she deposed that her husband is rather healthy and in paragraph no. 28 she deposed that she will stay in her maternal home and she will not got to her matrimonial home because there is danger of her life. In paragraph no. 29 she says that her husband is suffering from ulcer and always remained sick. The leaned counsel says that there is several contradictions in the evidence of this witness as she is making contradictory statement regarding health of her husband and, therefore, it cannot be believed. The learned counsel for the opposite party has further submitted that the opposite party has been acquitted in the criminal case lodged by the petitioner in the year 2014. He has further pointed out from the impugned judgment that the petitioner has made allegation of illicit relationship against the opposite party but the same was disbelieved by the learned court below as it was totally baseless. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the records of the case, I find that petitioner was examined as PW-4 who at paragraph no. 20 of her deposition has deposed that presently she visits her matrimonial home and at paragraph no. 25 she deposed that she lives in her parental home and her husband used to visit her parental home. Hence, it appears that the petitioner, without any valid reason, refused to live with her husband which has also been confirmed by the findings of the learned court below. The learned court below also came to the conclusion that the petitioner is living at her parental home without any reasonable cause. So there is no reason to interfere with the order 25.11.2022 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.14 of 2017 by the learned Principal District Judge, Ramgarh. 7.
Decision
In the result, the Cr. Revision No. 103 of 2023 stands dismissed. (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) KNR