Chandan Kumar Saha aged about 30 years son of Jai Narayan Saha, resident of v. Rita Kumari
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 859 of 2023 Chandan Kumar Saha aged about 30 years son of Jai Narayan Saha, resident of village Dangapara, P.O. and P.S. Hiranpur, District Pakur, Jharkhand Petitioner … … Versus Rita Kumari … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party --- : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate : None --- 08/02.07.2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This criminal revision petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "That the instant Cr. Revision is arising out from the Order dated 31- 05-2023 passed by the Learned Principal Judge Family Court, Pakur, passed in Original Maintenance No. 19/2023 whereby and whereunder the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur has been pleased to directed the Opp. party /Petitioner to pay Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance the date of application i.e. from 04-02-2023, further directed to pay Litigation cost of Rs.10000/- to Petitioner /Respondent (wife) within six months from the date of this order and further directed to pay the arrears amount of maintenance within 12 equal monthly installments." to Petitioner/Respondent (wife) from 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage between the parties is not in dispute and the petitioner has been throughout willing to keep the opposite party. The date of marriage is 06.03.2018 and on 22.10.2020, the opposite party had gone to her parents’ house without informing the petitioner. Ultimately, by virtue of the agreement dated 23.07.2021, the opposite party came back to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, the opposite party again left the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel has also submitted that a petition for restitution of conjugal rights was also filed, but the same has been dismissed. 5. She submits that the petitioner is ready to keep the opposite party. 6. She has submitted that the petitioner is running a grocery shop and SBI Grahak Seva Kendra which actually belongs to his family and it is a family business and therefore, the quantum of maintenance to the extent of Rs. 8,000/- calls for interference. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon going through the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the marriage between the parties is not in dispute. Upon notice, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Court. Upon appearance, the learned Court framed the following issues: "1. As the case is maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from the O.P, If yes, what will be the quantum of maintenance?" 8. The documentary and oral evidences have been mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the learned Court’s judgment as under: "5. In order to prove its case following two witnesses have examined on behalf of petitioner. P.W. 1 is Reeta Kumari is the Petitioner herself. P.W. 2 is Sachchi Devi is the mother of petitioner. Petitioner has been filed some documentary evidence in support of her case which has been marked as exhibits. Exhibit -1 is the xerox copy of FIR of Malpahari P.S. Case No 08/2023. Exhibit- 2 is the xerox copy of the receipt of the admission of P.G., Dumka. 6. On the other O.P. has been examined two witness in support of his case. O.P.W. 1 is Chandan Kumar Sah is the O.P himself. O.P.W. 2 is Mohan Lal Bhagat. O.P also filed documentary evidence which has been marked as exhibits as follows:- Exhibit-A- C/C of deposition of DW1 in OS 154/22 Exhibit-B- C/C of deposition of PW2 in OS 154/22 Exhibit-C-C/C of Ekrarnama dt. 23.07.2021 Exhibit- D- C/C of deposition of DW2 in OS 154/22." 9. The applicant (opposite party herein) had deposed before the learned Court and she was fully cross-examined. The mother of the applicant was examined as PW 2. She was also cross-examined. 10. The petitioner was examined as DW 1. He deposed that the applicant gives tuition and he does not give the livelihood expenses and educational expenses to the applicant. He further deposed that the applicant has lodged a case against him and his family members in connection with the demand of dowry. He also deposed that they have been released on bail and no child was born out of wedlock. In his 2 deposition, the DW 1 further stated that the name of the Pradhan of the village is Shiv Kumar Yadav and in his house, a paper of agreement was prepared. He also deposed that in his village about 7 to 8 grocery shops are present. Another witness i.e. DW 2 was examined from the side of the petitioner. He was also cross-examined. 11. The learned Court considered the issues framed and ultimately, after considering the evidences on record, found that the applicant had filed a case against her husband and family members with regard to demand of dowry, torture and assault etc. which was registered as Maeshpur P.S. Case No. 08 of 2023 dated 10.01.2023 under section 498A, 341, 323, 504/34 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and that the applicant was a student of MA. 12. It has also been recorded by the learned Court that the father of the petitioner was Gram Pradhan. The petitioner was economically and politically sound and was running a grocery shop and one SBI Grahak Seva Kendra and had landed property. 13. This Court finds that the plea of the petitioner being unemployed was rejected by the learned Court by considering the materials on record. The learned Court has recorded that there was consistent evidence of the witnesses on the point that the petitioner was running a grocery shop in his house and one SBI Grahak Seva Kendra and he has landed property. The learned Court has tentatively taken the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs. 30,000/-. However, while considering the quantum of maintenance, the learned Court has fixed a maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month. 14. This court finds that the learned court has considered every aspect of the matter while considering the prayer for grant of maintenance. The fact also remains that the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed and on account of filing of the criminal case arising out of dowry demand and torture, the wife has sufficient reasons to live separately. After having gone through the impugned order, this Court finds that the maintenance amount of only Rs. 8,000/- as has been fixed is a meagre amount and the impugned order has also recorded that the petitioner 3 has no other financial liabilities. No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction has been made out and accordingly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. 15. 16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. concerned through ‘FAX’. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4