Bijay Kr. Gupta @ Annu @ Bijay Kumar Gupta, aged about 44 years, S/o v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Chanda Kumari, W/o Vijay Kumar Gupta @ Annu
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 168 of 2023 With I.A. No. 6346 of 2024 Bijay Kr. Gupta @ Annu @ Bijay Kumar Gupta, aged about 44 years, S/o Late Nageshwar Gupta, resident of Mohalla Nayatola, Bhikanpur Gumto No.1, Mukharji Road, Bhagalpur (Bihar) Pin-812001, P.O., P.S.- Ishachak, District Bhagalpur (Bihar). … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Chanda Kumari, W/o Vijay Kumar Gupta @ Annu, D/O Late Arjun Das, resident of Mohalla Nayatola, Bhikanpur Gumto No.1, Mukharji Road, Bhagalpur (Bihar) Pin-812001, P.O., P.S.- Ishachak, District Bhagalpur (Bihar), at present resident of Mouza Runji, P.O.- Baniyadih, P.S.- Thakur-Gangti, District Godda …. … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the State --- : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate. : Mrs. Sweta Singh, Advocate ---
Legal Reasoning
05/04.07.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. I.A. No. 6346 of 2024 2. I.A. No. 6346 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay of 505 days in filing this criminal revision. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reasons for delay has been mentioned in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the interlocutory application. 4. Considering the averments made in the interlocutory application, I.A. No. 6346 of 2024 is hereby allowed and the delay of 505 days in preferring this criminal revision is hereby condoned. Cr. Rev. No. 168 of 2023 5. This revision application has been filed for following reliefs:- “That the instant criminal Revision application has been preferred against the order dated 05.07.2019, passed in 1 Original Maintenance Case No. 166/2017, filed U/S 125 Cr.P.C., passed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to the O.P. No.2. Further it has been directed that the order will be effective from the date of order of this case and the petitioner has been further directed to pay cost of litigation of Rs. 20,000/- to the O.P. No.2 in 20 equal installments. The petitioner has been directed to pay the aforesaid maintenance amount by 10th of the subsequent month.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a helper in a cloth shop and is not the owner of the shop. She has further submitted that the applicant (Opposite Party No. 2) had claimed that the petitioner was the owner of a shop and was also having income from rent and his total income is Rs. 40,000/- per month. The learned counsel submits that no material was produced to substantiate such high income of the petitioner and therefore the impugned order is perverse and calls for interference. She has also submitted that on account of a false and frivolous case filed against the petitioner, the petitioner was also sent to jail and he has suffered heavily. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order this court finds that the marriage between the parties is not in dispute. The marriage was solemnized on 31.05.2015. It further appears that the applicant had filed a case for the offence under sections 498A/323/504/506/34 of I.P.C and Sections 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and his family members and claimed that the petitioner had a big house at Bhikanpur Gumti No. 1, Bhagalpur and he earns Rs. 30,000/- per month while working in a company and also earns Rs. 10,000/- per month from house rent and therefore his total income was Rs. 40,000/-. 8. A show cause was filed by the petitioner wherein he did not deny the marriage and alleged that the applicant had filed a criminal 2 case for no rhyme and reason and he was unemployed and had no such income through rent. 9. On behalf of the applicant, three witnesses have been examined including herself as PW-3. Although PW-1 was cross-examined, but so far as PW-2 is concerned, nobody appeared to cross-examine the said witness. PW-3 was also not cross examined inspite of repeated calls. Consequently, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 remained uncontroverted. 10. On the other hand, it appears from the impugned order that altogether three witnesses were examined from the side of the petitioner. The O.P.W.-1 stated in his examination-in-chief that the petitioner was working in A.D.M. Shop at Delhi and his earning was Rs. 8 to 9 thousand per month and after expenses, his saving was Rs. 4,000/-. The petitioner does not get work every day. The petitioner had never demanded money from the applicant. In his cross- examination, he stated that applicant-wife lives in her mayke and she has filed a case under Section 498A of I.P.C. against her husband. The petitioner has paternal house at Bhagalpur. O.P.W.-2 stated in his examination-in-chief that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2015 and after marriage, the applicant went to her sasural where she did not do any work and she always remained busy on phone. At present, the petitioner wants to keep the applicant-wife with him and the petitioner tried to bring her several times, but she did not come. In his cross-examination, he stated that the petitioner is his cousin in relation. O.P.W-3, mother of the petitioner, stated in her examination-in-chief that the marriage of both parties was solemnized on 31.05.2015. The petitioner tried to bring the applicant several times, but she did not come. The petitioner wants to keep the applicant, but she does not want to live with him. The petitioner works in a shop of clothes and earns Rs.8-9 thousand per month and after all expenses, he saves Rs.5,000/- and he gives her 3 Rs.3,000/- and she is dependent upon her son, the petitioner. In her cross-examination, she admitted that at present, the applicant-wife lives in her mayke and she has filed a case under Section 498A of IPC against her and the petitioner in which the petitioner was remanded to jail. 11. This Court finds that the learned Family Court after considering the materials on record has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicant from the date of order with a litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid in 20 equal installments. 12. This Court finds that an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month only has been fixed for payment of maintenance to the applicant-wife from the date of order. As per the impugned order, it is not the case of the petitioner that he is unemployed. The applicant has deposed that she has no means of income and she was not cross examined from the side of the petitioner. 13. This Court further finds that the learned family court has considered every aspect of the matter and has passed the order of maintenance in favour of the applicant. Considering the quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Family Court to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- only, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX’. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4