Dr. Kumar Niraj Prakash v. ….... --- --- Opposite Parties
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 440 of 2017 Dr. Kumar Niraj Prakash --- --- Petitioner 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Nutan Kumari Versus ….... --- --- Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner For the O.P.No.2 For the State : Mr. Rohit Roy, Advocate : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, A.P.P. 25/23.02.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party assisted by learned A.P.P. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 28.02.2017 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case No. 27 of 2014 whereby and where under the petitioner-husband has been directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2-wife after deducting Rs.5000/- being paid in compliance of the interim maintenance order passed in MTS Case No. 221 of 2010 from the date of filing of the case i.e., 12.02.2014. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite party no.2 had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C for maintenance before the learned Family Court, Ranchi stating therein that the marriage between the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner was solemnized on 05.12.2007 and thereafter the dispute arose between them and she was ousted from the house of the petitioner-husband and thereafter she has been residing at her parent’s house and then the case was instituted under Section 125 Cr.P.C . It has further been submitted that the learned court below after hearing both the parties and after appreciating the evidences, passed the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 in Maintenance Case No. 27 of 2014 filed by the opposite party no.2 under which a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded as maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2, per month. It has been submitted that the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance fixed by the learned Family Court is exorbitant and the learned Family Court has not appreciated the evidences adduced on behalf of both the parties in right perspective. It has been pointed out that the learned Family Court has committed gross error in directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month out of his 2 total remuneration of Rs.19,000/- i.e., more than half of the salary. It has further been pointed out that the learned Family Court has committed error in not appreciating the admitted fact that the opposite party no.2 – wife had purchased a second hand car from her income and thus it is evident that she was earning and capable of maintaining herself and therefore, she is not entitled to any amount as maintenance from the petitioner. Further, it has been submitted that the maintenance has been awarded to the opposite party no.2 to be paid by the petitioner is more than 50% of his salary without taking into account that the petitioner has old parents to support besides maintaining himself, while the opposite party no.2 is herself a Graduate and very much capable to maintain herself and she is already getting Rs. 5000/- as interim maintenance from the petitioner and as such, no case of grant of maintenance is made out
Decision
under Section 125 Cr.P.C and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and submitted that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidences adduced on behalf of both the parties and passed the order of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month after deduction of Rs. 5000 ( Rupees Five Thousand only) being paid in compliance with the interim maintenance order passed in M.T.S. Case No. 221 of 2010, which is quite reasonable and just. Further, it has been pointed out that the petitioner with ulterior motive did not submit the salary slip, although he is employed as doctor in Ram Krishna Mission, T.B. Sanatorium, Tupudana, which is an admitted fact and therefore, there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned order and this criminal revision is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case. 6. It is found that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner – husband and the opposite party-wife. It appears that there were three witnesses examined on behalf of the opposite party no.2 as under: I. P.W.1 is Niraj Kumar Arya, brother of the O.P. No.2. II. P.W.2 is Ganpat Ram, a retired teacher III. P.W.3-Nutan Kumari, the opposite party no.2 herself. 7. The petitioner had examined two witnesses as under: 3 I. O.P.W. 1- Dr. Niraj Kumar himself II. O.P.W.2- Kumar Sailesh Prakash, brother of the petitioner 8. It is also found that the learned Family Court had called for salary slip of the petitioner along with other relevant papers in order to determine the income of the petitioner-husband and the same was brought on record marked as Ext. 1 and 2, which are certificate and receipt of payment issued by the Ram Krishna Mission, Tupudana from which it revealed that petitioner, who was working as Resident doctor at Ram Krisha Mission was being paid Rs.19,000/- per month as remuneration. From the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, it is found that the opposite party no.2 is a house wife and she is not engaged anywhere and has no earning from any sources. Further, it is also found that the statement adduced on behalf of the petitioner that opposite party no.2 had purchased a second hand car and therefore, she is capable to maintain herself does not hold good in view of the fact that petitioner has failed to bring on record any evidence from which it can be found that opposite party no.2 was working anywhere or earning anything or any kind of remuneration for maintaining herself. In the absence of any such evidence, the learned Family Court has rightly come to the conclusion that opposite party no.2 is deserted wife and she has not any source of earning and claim of petitioner husband is not valid that his wife O.P. No.2 is earning and therefore a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded as maintenance to the opposite party no.2-wife after deduction of Rs.5000 being paid in compliance with the interim maintenance order passed in M.T.S Case No. 221 of 2010, from the date of filing of the case on 12.02.2014 is just, fair and reasonable. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or any cogent point to interfere in the impugned order of maintenance dated 28.02.2017 passed in Maintenance Case No. 27 of 2014 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi and therefore, the instant criminal revision is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending I.A.s are disposed of, consequently. A.Mohanty (Navneet Kumar, J.)