Sakaldeo Yadav, S/o – Mahadev Yadav, Aged about – 35 yrs, Resident of Village v. 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Guriya Devi, W/o – Sakaldeo Yadav 3. Neha Kumari
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1024 of 2023 With I.A. No. 8230 of 2023 Sakaldeo Yadav, S/o – Mahadev Yadav, Aged about – 35 yrs, Resident of Village – Chandrapur, P.O. Chandrapur, P.S. – Jainagar, District – Koderma At Present – Resident of Village – Gandhi School Road, P.O. – Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. – Telaiya, District - Koderma … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Guriya Devi, W/o – Sakaldeo Yadav 3. Neha Kumari, D/o – Sakaldeo Yadav 4. Nisha Kumari , D/o – Sakaldeo Yadav O.P. No.2 to 4 are Resident of Village – Chandrapur, P.S. – Jainagar, P.O. – Jainagar, District – Koderma At present O.P. No.2 to 4 are Resident of Village – Biharo, P.S. – Jainagar, P.O. – Jaingar, District – Koderma and Gandhi School, Road, Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. – Telaiya, P.O. – Jhumri Telaiya, District - Koderma … … Opposite Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Advocate --- 05/05.07.2024 The learned counsel for the petitioner is present. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed for the following relief: “1. That, the above named petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the order passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Koderma Sri Syed Saleem Fatmi dated 10th day of February 2023 prefer this revision application in connection with original Maintenance Case No.61/2021 U/S -125 of Cr.P.C. whereby and where under Principal Judge Family Court koderma, Sri Syed Saleem Fatmi has been pleased to allow the application of the petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 here Opposite parties no.2,3 and 4 for maintenance and ordered and directed to pay his wife Guriya Devi( i.e Petitioner no.1 here O.p No.2) to pay Rs 2,000/-( Two Thousand )per month and Rs 2,000/-(Two Thousand Each) to his Two Daughters namely Neha Kumari And Nisha Kumari(petitioner No. 2 and 3 here O.P no.3 and 4) total monthly maintenance allowance of Rs 6,000/- shall be paid by opposite party to petitioner no.1 from date of filing i.e 02.07.2021. The monthly maintenance allowance of each month must be given on or before 10th of each month of Gregorian Calendar.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application for condonation of delay of 96 days. 4. 5. The learned counsel has also argued the case on merits. So far as the interlocutory application is concerned, he has submitted that the reasons have been stated in paragraphs 4 to 8 of the interlocutory application. 6. Perused the application for condonation of delay. Being satisfied with cause shown, the delay is condoned. I.A. No. 8230 of 2023 is allowed. Cr. Rev. No. 1024 of 2023 7. The learned counsel submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 is not in dispute. Two children were born out of their wedlock who are aged about 13 years and 10 years. They are school going children. He submits that the petition for maintenance was filed on 02.07.2021 by opposite party No. 2, 3 and 4 being the wife and two daughters of the petitioner and an order of maintenance has been passed for payment to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- each to both the daughters. 8. The learned counsel submits that during the pendency of this case, the wife has been taken into custody in connection with one Criminal Case and so far as two daughters are concerned, they are with the petitioner. He has also referred to the supplementary affidavit and has submitted that the decree in favour of the petitioner has been passed so far as the guardianship of two daughters are concerned. He submits that the petitioner has been declared to be the natural guardian of the two children. He has further submitted that after the decree, the petitioner has taken custody of both the children, and the wife is in judicial custody and therefore the impugned order of maintenance calls for interference. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that subsequent development cannot be taken into consideration while considering the revision on merit. He has further submitted that if there is any subsequent 2 development, the petitioner has a remedy under section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and this case has to be decided considering the legality and validity of the impugned judgment passed by the learned court. He submits that the marriage is not in dispute, two children born out of the wedlock is not in dispute and a meagre amount of Rs. 2,000/- each has been fixed. He has also submitted that the impugned order also reflects that the wife had reasons to live separately, and therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2005 and two children were born out of their wedlock who are minor. It further appears that the case for maintenance was filed by the applicant i.e. the wife for seeking maintenance for herself and two daughters on 02.07.2021 alleging that the petitioner demanded dowry and after giving birth to two daughters, the cruelties towards the applicant increased more. It has also been alleged that food etc. was not provided and the petitioner has stopped paying school fees for both the daughters. It was stated that the petitioner was employed and was having Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- income and annual income of Rs.60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- from agricultural source and was capable to maintain the applicants. It was also stated by the applicant that she is an illiterate lady and had no source of income to maintain herself and her daughters; she claimed monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- for herself and for her daughters. 11. The petitioner had filed show cause and had made an allegation against the applicant that she had developed illicit relationship with one person who used to come to their house in absence and that the wife did not allow him to live in his own house and she assaulted him with the help of the said person and that the wife and said person had opened a ‘Khataal’ and kept many cows and they were selling milk and earn Rs. 40,000/- per month, and therefore, the applicant had sufficient means to maintain herself and was also being maintained by the said person with whom she had illicit relationship. 3 12. The following issues were framed for consideration: “(i) Whether petitioner no.1 is legally wedded wife of opposite party and petitioner no.2 & 3 is his daughters? (ii) Whether the claim of maintenance filed by petitioners is maintainable or not?” 13. The applicant examined three witnesses, herself and two daughters and the petitioner examined only one witness. The witnesses were cross-examined and both the children had stated that for last 2 to 3 years they were living with their maternal uncle (Mama) and their father was duly employed and was not giving expenses for their education and were not maintaining them for last three years. They have been cross examined and they denied that their mother had opened a ‘Khatal’ and had monthly income of Rs. 40,000/- per month. They had also stated that the expenses for mother and children were being fulfilled by their uncle (Mama). 14. The petitioner had deposed and made the same allegation as was made in the show cause. He was cross-examined and admitted that he had two daughters and was living separately and the wife was living separately for last two years. He admitted that he had got agricultural income for which he gets produce for a year and he was capable to maintain his wife & daughters. He was cross examined on the point of illicit relationship of the wife also, and he stated that he could not submit any documentary evidence regarding the illicit relationship of his wife and he has no proof regarding the income of his wife. 15. The learned court considered the materials on record and gave findings in favour of the applicants and took the income of the husband of the petitioner to be at least 15,000/- per month and ultimately allowed maintenance to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- to each person, total being Rs. 6,000/-. 16. This Court finds the impugned order has considered all the aspects of the matter and the petitioner had failed to prove illicit relationship of his wife with the third person, and the two daughters had supported the respective case inasmuch as they have said that the 4 entire expenses of their mother and two daughters were being born by their uncle (mama). 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or perversity calling for interference in the impugned judgment of maintenance. The impugned judgement is upheld. 18. However, in case of any subsequent development which might have taken place, the petitioner has a right to move an application under section 127 of Cr.P.C. This court is of the considered view that the subsequent developments which have been referred to and argued by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration in this criminal
Decision
revision. 19. Accordingly, this criminal revision stands disposed of. 20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email. Saurav/Rakesh (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 5