The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 216 of 2011 Ravinandan Singh ..... … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sukarmani Devi Versus -------- .…. … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 ------ : : : ------ M/s Vijay Kumar Gupta & P.Singh, Advocate A.P.P. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate 6/ 04.07.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the opposite parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 30.11.2010 2. passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla, in Maintenance Case No. M-35/2005, whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs. 2000/- per month to his deserted wife, for her maintenance. 3. The opposite party No. 2 had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. According to the case of Opposite party No.2, there was some affair between her and the petitioner prior to their marriage, due to which some criminal cases was there and there was a compromise between the parties, in which the marriage of the parties was performed in the police station on 9.2.2004. Subsequently, the petitioner had married another lady on 5.5.2005, which was objected to by her, whereupon, she was driven out of her matrimonial home. Claiming that she had no means to maintain herself, whereas the petitioner was having monthly income of about Rs. 12,000/- per month as LIC Agent and he had income from house and agriculture land, the application was filed in the Court below for maintenance by the opposite party no. 2. 4. The petitioner appeared in the Court below and denied the marriage between the parties and the case of the petitioner is that he was not married with the opposite party No. 2, rather, the petitioner was married with another lady on 4.5.2003 itself, and accordingly, the petitioner denied any marriage between himself and the opposite party No. 2 and also denied any liability of making payment of compensation to her. 5. The impugned Judgment shows that the witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant in the Court below, in which, the applicant was also examined as A.W.1, who supported her case fully, claiming that she was married with the petitioner in police station and subsequently, the petitioner married with another lady on 5.5.2005 and thereafter she was subjected to cruelty and torture and driven out from her matrimonial home. The applicant in the Court below also deposed about the income of the petitioner. The other witnesses examined on behalf of the applicant in the Court below also supported her case. 6. The petitioner also examined witnesses in his favour in the Court below, in which, the petitioner was examined as D.W.3. Though the petitioner -2- denied the marriage between the parties, but he was given the suggestion that there was love marriage between the parties in the police station, which he has denied. He has deposed about his income to be Rs. 3000/- to 4000/- per month as LIC Agent. In his cross-examination, he also denied the suggestion that there was criminal case against him, which was compromised, and which ended in their marriage and thereafter, opposite party No. 2 lived with the petitioner as his wife for about one and half years. He has admitted in his cross-examination that after being driven out from her house, she filed another criminal case against him, in which, he was in jail for about two months. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he had filed an application for bail in the High Court, but he denied the suggestion that he had given any undertaking in the High Court that the applicant was his wife and he was ready to keep her with full dignity and he also undertook to give her maintenance if she refused to live with him. The other witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner have supported the case of the petitioner and denied the marriage between them. 7. The order passed by the High Court in B.A. No. 5666 of 2005 was also proved in the Court below, which was marked as Exhibit-C. The said order has been brought on record by way of Annexure-2 by the petitioner himself, which clearly shows that at the time of hearing of the bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was ready to keep the informant as wife with full honour and dignity and if she is not agreeable, he was also ready to pay adequate maintenance to her without prejudice to her other rights under the law; and on that undertaking, the petitioner was granted provisional bail by order dated 5.10.2005. Again it appears from the order dated 16.12.2005 passed in the said bail application (Annexure-2/1), that the certified copy of the petition filed in Maintenance Case No. 35 of 2005 was produced before this Court and the petitioner was directed to appear in the said proceeding along with the show cause and the provisional bail granted to the petitioner was affirmed. Taking into consideration these orders, which were proved in the 8. Court below, and on the basis of the other evidence on record, the Court below has held the opposite party No. 2 entitled to the maintenance from the petitioner and has directed him to make payment of Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, there is no finding of the Court below that the opposite party No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, rather, the fact remains that the petitioner was married earlier with another lady. It has also been submitted that there is no finding by the Court below even regarding the income of the petitioner and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Learned counsels for the State as also for the opposite party No.2, 10. on the other hand, have submitted that apart from the evidence led in the Court below, which clearly showed that there was affair between the parties leading to a criminal case, in which, there was a compromise and both the parties were married in police station, there was also an undertaking by the petitioner in the High Court that he was ready to keep the opposite party No. 2 as his wife with full dignity and honour and he was ready to pay maintenance, if she did not agree to live with him. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that even -3- according to the undertaking given by the petitioner in this Court, the marriage between the parties is established and the petitioner is liable to make the payment of maintenance to the opposite party No. 2. 11. After hearing learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the impugned Judgment, I find that the Court below has taken into consideration the evidence on record, including the documentary evidence, i.e., the order passed by this Court in B.A. No. 5666 of 2005, wherein, there is clear undertaking given by this petitioner that he was ready to keep the informant as wife and also ready to pay adequate maintenance to her and on that undertaking, he was granted bail by this Court. Accordingly, the Court below has held the opposite party No. 2 entitled to the maintenance from the petitioner and has directed him to make payment of Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance. Even the evidence brought on record clearly shows that the petitioner married the opposite party No. 2 in the police station on 9.2.2004 and he again married another lady on 5.5.2005. The evidence adduced by the petitioner, that he had married another lady on 9.5.2003 itself, cannot be relied upon, also in view of the fact that the petitioner had admitted the opposite party No. 2 as wife in his undertaking before this Court, upon which he was granted bail by this Court and accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the finding of the Court below that the opposite party No. 2 is entitled to maintenance from the petitioner. She has sufficient reason for living separately, in view of the denial of relationship by the petitioner and the admitted fact that there is an another lady also with the petitioner. 12. As regards the evidence on the earning of the petitioner, it finds mentioned in the impugned Judgment that witnesses have proved the fact that the petitioner was having the earning of Rs. 6000/- per month, apart from other earnings from the agriculture land and other property. There is admission of the petitioner himself in his evidence that he had earning as LIC Agent, though only the amount was disputed. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is having sufficient earning to maintain his wife. I do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below granting maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month to opposite party No. 2, who is deserted wife of the petitioner. In view of the aforementioned discussions, I do not find any 13. illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned Judgment worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. R.Kr. ( H. C. Mishra, J.)