Manish Pande, aged about 35 yrs, S/o Sri Girendra Mohan Pandey, R/o Near Thakur v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Puja Kumari Vidyarthi, W/o Manish Pande, D/o Manoj Kumar
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 869 of 2023 Manish Pande, aged about 35 yrs, S/o Sri Girendra Mohan Pandey, R/o Near Thakur Colony, Kali Mandir Road, Bekarbandh, P.O. P.S. Petitioner and Dist. Dhanbad … … Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Puja Kumari Vidyarthi, W/o Manish Pande, D/o Manoj Kumar Vidyarthi, R/o Panchet Road, Vivekanand Colony, P.O. and P.S. Chirkunda, Dist. Dhanbad … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the O.P. No. 2 For the State
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Prakash Ratodia, Advocate : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate : Mr. Achinto Sen, APP --- 05/18.06.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the learned court of Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No. 172 of 2022 whereby the learned Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 till she is alive. 3. The counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the learned court has not properly considered the photographs and the WhatsApp chat which were marked as exhibit
Decision
Y-series. He submits that on this sole ground the impugned order is fit to be set aside. However, during the course of argument and upon a query made by this court, the counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to inform this Court about the date of the photograph / whats-app chats. He has submitted that in that case, the required certification in terms of section 65-B of the Evidence Act was required to be produced by the petitioner and for that purpose the matter be remanded to the Court for fresh consideration. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the impugned order is a well- reasoned order and a case for dissolution of marriage filed by the petitioner is still going on. He has also submitted that the finding with regard to adultery has been given in paragraph 12 of the impugned order by holding that the petitioner had filed some photographs which were marked as exhibit-Y series and nothing objectionable was found and as per whatsapp chat, it did not appear that the opposite party No. 2 had sent messages to her boyfriend. He submits that the learned court upon perusal of the materials has recorded the finding which does not suffer from any perversity. The learned counsel has also submitted that it was for the petitioner to take appropriate steps for production of the certificates under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and otherwise also the impugned order being a well-reasoned order does not call for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court. 5. learned counsel for After hearing the the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the only ground which has been raised by the petitioner before this court during the course of argument is with regard to allegation of adultery against the opposite party No. 2. This Court finds that the learned court has recorded specific finding in connection with the allegation of adultery and rejected the same vide paragraph no. 12 of the impugned order which is quoted as under:- “ In the present case, from perusal of the evidence as well as material available on record, it transpires that the marriage of petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on dated 19.04.2018. After sometimes of marriage, in Sasural due to demand of dowry of Rs.5.00 lakh petitioner was tortured by her husband. It further has come in the evidence of the petitioner that respondent was already married with another lady namely Phellomina which was not disclosed by the respondent to her. The allegation made by the petitioner denied by the respondent by stating that petitioner has illicit relationship with another person and she wants to live with her paramour. She is not interested to lead conjugal life with him. Respondent has filed some photographs marked as 'Y' series. I have seen the aforesaid photographs and found nothing objectionable on seeing these photographs. As per marked Y/4’ & 'Y/5' some WhatsApp messages has been sent to each other. On perusal of these 2 messages, it does not appears that petitioner Puja Kumari has sent messages to her boyfriend. So, on this ground it cannot be said that petitioner is leading adulterous life with another person. However, on perusal of evidence of witnesses. it appears that there is strained relationship between both the parties and petitioner is residing in her Maika since the year 2021 and during this period, respondent did not try to bring his wife back nor he provided her maintenance rather, he has filed divorce suit against his wife. Petitioner is stated that respondent is doing in a private company and his monthly salary is Rs. 85,000/. Respondent has admitted the fact that he was doing job in a private company but after lodging F.I.R against him, he was removed from his job and presently, he is unemployed. As per evidence of petitioner, it further appears that she is also a qualified lady and she was doing job in Wipro Company which has been now left by her. She has further stated that she has done B.Tech. from Computer Science. Both parties have filed affidavit regarding the assets and liabilities. Both have showed their income Nil. It is admitted fact that petitioner and the respondent are legally married husband and wife and earlier, both petitioner and respondent were doing job in private company. Since respondent is a well educated and qualified person so, it cannot be said that he is sitting unemployed without any job. However, a healthy and able-bodied, sound mind person is duty bound to maintain his wife. Petitioner is also a qualified lady so, it may possible that she is also doing job however, on the ground of working woman, respondent cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife.” 6. This court has also perused the photographs which were placed on record before the learned court and marked as ‘Y’-series for identification and the whatsapp chats and finds no reasons to differ with the findings of the learned court in revisional jurisdiction. 7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, this court does not find any perversity or illegality with respect to the findings recorded in paragraph 12 of the impugned order with regard to the allegation of adultery. 8. So far as other aspects of grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. are concerned, the same have been duly considered by the learned court and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month has only been awarded. No argument with regard to quantum of maintenance and other aspects of the matter has been made by the counsel for the 3 petitioner in the present proceedings. This court further finds that the impugned judgement is a well-reasoned judgement in all aspects of the matter. 9. 10. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that any observation/finding recorded by the learned court as well as this Court while upholding the order passed by the learned court will not have any bearing on the pending suit filed by the petitioner seeking divorce. 11. 12. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through Pending I.A., if any, is closed. FAX/e-mail. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4