Sushma Devi, daughter of late Ram Chandra Mahto and wife of v. Gautam Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 691 of 2023 Gautam Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Jainandan Singh, Resident of Village Parchha, P.O.- Parchha, P.S.-Chutia, District- Rohtas, State- Bihar … … Petitioner 1. Sushma Devi, daughter of late Ram Chandra Mahto and wife of Versus Gautam Singh; 2. Chhaya, aged about 10 years, daughter of Gautam Singh, minor daughter represented through her mother Sushma Devi Both Resident of KDH Main Colony, P.O.- Dakra, P.S. – Khalari, District-Ranchi. … … Opposite Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
--- : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate : None --- 03/30.07.2024 1. 2. . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- the “The petitioner begs to challenge the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 26.04.2023 passed by Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi in original Maintenance Case No. 388 of 2019 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby and learned Additional Principal Judge, whereunder, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi allowed the petitioner filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand) per month to the opposite party No. 1 namely Sushma Devi as maintenance. Petitioner is further directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per month to Respondent No.2. The maintenance amount will be payable from the date of application. However, Petitioner is at liberty to pay the arrear amount from the date of application till date of order in four installments within a year. Moreover, petitioner is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as litigation cost to the respondents within four weeks of the order.” 1 3. This petition has been filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 26.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No. 388 of 2019 under section 125 of Cr.P.C. whereby the learned court has allowed the petition and the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 1 and has further directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 1 is the wife of the petitioner and opposite Party No. 2 is the daughter said to be 10 years as mentioned in the petition itself. 4. The learned counsel submits that the disputes and differences between the parties were resolved as back as in the year 2009 when a Panchayati was held on 19.10.2009 in which there was a settlement where the wife had refused to come back to her matrimonial home and to live with the petitioner and her family members also did not want their daughter to live with the petitioner. She submits that during the Panchayati the wife had clearly admitted that she had no surviving grievance against the petitioner and she did not want anything from him. It has also been stated that opposite party No. 1 and her sister were married in the same family with the petitioner and his full brother respectively . She submits that the wife had taken all ornaments at the time she left the house of the petitioner and the petitioner did not have any knowledge about the birth of their child as the opposite party No. 1 never informed him about the same. But he came to know about the child and he admits that daughter is his child. The learned counsel submits that it was very surprising that after a very long period of 10 years, the wife had filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 6255 of 2019 before the SDJM, Ranchi which is still pending. The learned counsel submits that on the face of the Panchayati as is apparent from the page No. 86 of the present petition, the impugned order calls for interference. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court finds that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 (the applicant), on 12.05.2007 is not in dispute. As per the 2 petition filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C, it was specific case of the applicant that when the Barat returned, at that point of time she did not accompany the petitioner on account of certain dispute between the families but the husband used to visit her as her parents’ house for about 2 years; ultimately, she was sent to her matrimonial house. However, her in- laws were not happy with the gifts. The applicant narrated the entire story with regard to her stay and torture at her matrimonial home and on 18.04.2009, the petitioner and her family members told specifically that if she does not fulfil the demand they will not keep the applicant and ultimately on account of torture and demand, the applicant left her matrimonial home. 6. It was also asserted that one daughter was born out of wedlock on 03.02.2010 but the petitioner was not happy on account of birth of the daughter. It was further asserted in the petition that seeing the cruelties of her husband and the environment in the matrimonial home, the applicant left her matrimonial home and started living in her Maika for last two years continuously and the present petitioner neglected to keep and maintain her and her daughter. It was also asserted that the applicant was unable to maintain herself and her daughter and consequently, the petition was filed. 7. Upon notice the petitioner appeared, marriage was admitted and it further asserted that the petition was filed after 11 years of marriage and that the applicant had after marriage had stayed for only two months and thereafter without cogent reason left her matrimonial home and did not return back even for a single day. It was also asserted that in the year 2009 the Panchayati was held on 19.10.2009 in which there was a settlement and where the applicant refused to come back to her matrimonial home and live with the petitioner. It was also mentioned in the show cause that the applicant had filed a complaint case being No. 6255 of 2019 before the SDJM, Ranchi which was pending and it was asserted that after admission and settlement in the Panchayati everything was unnecessary. 8. The applicant examined three witnesses including herself as PW 1, her brother as PW 2 and the child was also examined as PW 3. 3 Certain documents were also exhibited and so far as the petitioner is concerned, he examined altogether five witnesses and he himself was examined as RW-5. Certain documentary evidences were also exhibited. 9. It was asserted by the applicant that the petitioner had solemnized second marriage and that the petitioner had two buildings and also land and he was working as a contractor and earns Rs. 2 lakhs per month as his monthly income and therefore, the claim for Rs. 45,000/- per month maintenance for herself and Rs. 35,000/- per month for her minor daughter was made along with cost of legal expenses. 10. The learned court considered all the materials on record and also recorded that it was apparent from the record that there was no divorce and the petitioner had married another lady in the year 2012. The learned court also considered that the paper regarding Panchayati was shown to the applicant during her cross examination and she denied the execution of any such paper before the Panches. The learned court recorded the findings as follows:- “In the present case admittedly both the parties belong to Hindu religion, their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and religion and respondent has admitted that he has solemnized second marriage without giving divorce to his first wife i.e. petitioner No. 1 as per law. The solemnization of second marriage by the respondent during subsistence to his marriage with petitioner No. 1 itself amount to cruelty. It is contended on behalf of respondent that petitioner No. 1 has filed this case after 11 years of their separation only with intent to harass the respondent but it appears from record that petitioner No. 1 is still the legally wedded wife of the respondent and petitioner No. 2 is their daughter and petitioner no. 1 still not remarried and respondent had not able to adduce any cogent and reliable evidence that he is giving any maintenance to petitioner No. 1 and their daughter and he has not able to adduce any cogent evidence that he has made any attempt to resume their marital life rather evidence on record suggests that he has solemnized second marriage with another girl during subsistence of his 4 marriage with petitioner No.1. Thus from above discussion, I find that petitioner No.1 has able to prove that she has no source of income to maintain herself and their child and she is living separately from respondent under compulsion of circumstances. Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides that – a husband who has sufficient income if, failing to maintain his wife and minor children is liable to incur an order for maintenance.” 11. The learned court ultimately recorded as follows:- “In the present case petitioner No.1 has able to prove that she has no source of income to maintain herself and their daughter and she is fully dependent upon her widow mother for their sustenance. Petitioner no.1 has also able to prove that she is living separately from respondent under compulsion of circumstances and her separate living is on reasonable and justified ground. Thus petitioners are entitled for maintenance and respondent being the husband and father of petitioner no.1 and 2 respectively are liable to maintain them.” 12. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned court considered the materials on record and recorded a finding that the applicant was not able to adduce any cogent and reliable evidence that the petitioner was the owner of Scorpio, Tractor and two storied building and his income was Rs. 2 lakhs per month but also rejected the plea of the petitioner that he had a meager income of Rs. 300/- per day. The learned court after considering the materials on record held that the petitioner was concealing his actual income in order to defeat the claim of the applicant and ultimately, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- to the applicant No. 1 and Rs. 6,000/- to applicant No.2. 13. After having gone through the impugned order and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the learned court has recorded findings in connection with basic ingredients for grant of maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the findings are based on evidences adduced during the court proceedings. 5 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the argument of the petitioner that there was a Panchayati and the applicant had agreed to separate has no bearing in the matter. The applicant was duly cross examined with respect to the said Panchayati which she
Decision
denied. This Court finds that the impugned order is presentable and is based on appreciation of materials on record. This court finds no illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the impugned order calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 16. 17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court Pending I.A., if any, is closed. concerned through ‘FAX’. Rakesh/- (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 6