Md. Idrish Khan @ Md. Idrish v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Halima Bibi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 704 of 2021 ------ Md. Idrish Khan @ Md. Idrish Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Halima Bibi .... ... Petitioner … … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner For the State -------- : Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 2, Advocate : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. Judgement Dated: 22nd February, 2024 -------- Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed against the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Maintenance Alteration Case No. 02 of 2019 (arising out of Misc. Case No. 42 of 1989), whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has allowed the petition under Section 127 (1) of Cr.P.C. filed by Opposite party No. 2 and enhanced the maintenance allowance and directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No. 2 from the date of filing of the petition under Section 127 (1) of Cr.P.C. i.e. from 01.05.2019 as monthly allowance for her maintenance. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that opposite party No. 2 had filed a petition under Section 127 (1) of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa, stating therein that she was the wife of petitioner Idrish Khan and earlier she had filed Miscellaneous Case No. 42 of 1989 for claiming her maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and in the said Miscellaneous Case No. 42 of 1989 the learned Court below had allowed the maintenance directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.300/- per month to opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 02.04.1990 which was enhanced by Rs.50/- vide order dated 22.08.1992 and further it was enhanced to 1,000/- per month vide order dated 16.08.2008 and the petitioner has accordingly paying the said amount in her account No. 30677090694 of State Bank of India, Garhwa. -2- Cr. Revision No. 704 of 2021 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that it has also been submitted in the Maintenance Alteration Case No. 02 of 2019 by the opposite party No. 2 that she had been living in a separate rental house in Garhwa market and petitioner has retired from the Veterinary Department, Garhwa on 31.01.1999 and drawing his pension alongwith enhancement in dearness allowance and opposite party No. 2, had no any means of living and her two sons are also living separately and maintaining their family and they do not want to support their mother for her maintenance. 5. It has further been submitted by the petitioner that opposite party No. 2 had also submitted that she was an old sick woman and required her health treatment regularly and therefore, she was unable to bear the cost of expenses in the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- per month which was awarded by order dated 16.08.2008 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, she made an application before the learned Court below for enhancing the maintenance allowance to be paid by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa, vide order dated 31.08.2021 enhanced and allowed the petition filed by opposite party No. 2 under Section 127 (1) of the Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to opposite party No. 2 from the date of filing of the application under Section 127(1) of the Cr.P.C. i.e. from 01.05.2019 as monthly allowance for her maintenance. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa, in Maintenance Alteration Case No. 02 of 2019, whereby and where under the learned Court has enhanced the monthly maintenance amount to Rs.3,000/- to be paid to opposite party No. 2, has filed this Revision Application. 7. It is submitted that opposite party No. 2 is admittedly the wife of the petitioner and out of their wedlock two sons and one daughter were born and opposite party No. 2 is living with her son Amit Khan in a Government quarter and he has sufficient means to maintain his mother and under such -3- Cr. Revision No. 704 of 2021 circumstances the enhancement of amount of maintenance passed by the learned Court below from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month is illegal and not tenable. 8. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has retired from his service and he has kept another lady after divorce from opposite party No. 2 and thus his expenditure has increased and he is unable to pay the sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party No. 2 which is highly excessive and unbearable for the petitioner. 9. Further, it has also been stated that opposite party No. 2 is capable to earn herself and it has been admitted by opposite party No. 2 herself that she was working as domestic helper to maintain herself prior to the grant of maintenance to her and therefore, the impugned order under which the maintenance amount has been enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per months is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 10. On the other hand learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that it is a maintenance case between husband and wife and therefore, let a suitable order may be passed for the maintenance amount. 11. Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case including the Lower Court Records. 12. It is found that three witnesses have been examined on behalf of opposite party No. 2 who had filed the Maintenance Alteration Case No. 02 of 2019 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa, for enhancement of her maintenance amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. 13. P.W.-1, Halima Bibi, (opposite party No. 2 herself), P.W.-2, Hamida Bibi, (daughter of opposite party No. 2) and P.W.-3, Md. Aslam, (son of opposite party No. 2) all have supported the claim of the opposite party No. 2, during their examination. On the other hand the petitioner has also been examined as D.W.-1, in the learned Court below. 14. From the depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of both the parties it is found that it is admitted position that the petitioner Md. Idrish Khan @ Md. Idrish, is the husband of opposite party No. 2, Halima Bibi and out of their wedlock two sons and one daughter were born. It is also found -4- Cr. Revision No. 704 of 2021 that earlier opposite party No. 2, Halima Bibi had been getting the maintenance vide Miscellaneous Case No. 42 of 1989 a sum of Rs.300/- per month by order dated 02.04.1990 which was later on enhanced to a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month and now by the impugned order it has been enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per month. 15. It has also been found that it is admitted case that the petitioner was a Government servant and he has retired from Veterinary Department, Garhwa and drawing pension and in this regard it has been stated by the witnesses examined on behalf of opposite party No. 2 that the petitioner had been drawing Rs.30,000/- per month pension with enhancement in D.A. etc. which has been denied by the petitioner but he has admitted that he is drawing Rs.17,000/- per month as pension and he is willing and ready for enhancement in the maintenance amount. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidences adduced on behalf of both the parties and comes to a very reasonable finding under which a sum of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded as maintenance to opposite party No. 2 to be paid by the petitioner. 17. It is found that the earlier maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- per month which of course is not sufficient in the present scenario for opposite party No. 2 to maintain herself who is said to be above 83 years old. Further, it is found that the sons and daughter of opposite party No. 2 are earning member but they have got their own family and this is not the ground to reject the maintenance amount to be paid to opposite party No. 2 by her husband and it is an obligation on the part of the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife-opposite party No. 2 and therefore, she is entitled for maintenance from the petitioner and the learned Trial Court has rightly quantified the amount i.e. a sum of Rs.3,000/- as maintenance from the date of filing of the petition i.e. on 01.05.2019 per month to opposite party No. 2 to be paid by the petitioner. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions and appraisal of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties during the course of trial in the learned Court below it is found that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, -5- Cr. Revision No. 704 of 2021 Garhwa, has not committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned order dated 31.08.2021 and there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned order under which the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded to opposite party No. 2-wife to be paid by the petitioner-husband. 19. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed being devoid of merit. D.S./J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)