Vijay Bhengra … … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nutan Lili Horo
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1287 of 2022 ----- Vijay Bhengra … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nutan Lili Horo ----- … …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
instituted against the petitioner and in-laws. The OP No.2 was even beaten up. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, the fact that clearly emerges from the maze of allegations and counter allegations, is that the petitioner was serving as constable in Jharkhand Armed Police-3, and OP No.2 his wife, had a brief stay in her matrimonial home at Khunti for little more than ten months. 7. It is difficult to fathom the reason of marital discord from the application of maintenance, although at some place it alludes to insinuation against the petitioner that initially he had interest to marry OP No.2. On the other hand it has been consistently alleged by the petitioner that OP No.2 was an alcoholic. 8. The evidence that has been led on behalf of the opposite party no.2, cannot be looked into beyond what is pleaded in the maintenance application. This is so because there is always a possibility of the witnesses during trial to hurl wanton allegation against each other. Some sweeping allegations have been made in the maintenance application, but they are general and omnibus in nature without referring to specific date, time and name of the person who harassed her. Only in para 8, it has been stated that on 02.01.2021, when she returned to her matrimonial home, she was obstructed by the elder brother of her husband. By the time maintenance application was filed no case was instituted against the petitioner. 9. There is merit in the argument on behalf of the Petitioner that that there had not been any dowry demand which has been admitted in evidence by the witnesses, as it was not part of tribal custom. OP No.2 was not interested to live at Khunti rather was inclined to live at Ranchi with her father. She quite often left for Ranchi without any reason. AW 1 has herself deposed in para 23 and 24 that she wanted to live with her husband at his work place and not in her matrimonial home. Petitioner (O.W. 1) in para 20 of the cross examination has deposed that his wife was living in natal home for last 1½ year. It has also come the deposition of petitioner that he has an old and ailing parents, for whose treatment he has taken a loan of Rupees Ten Lakhs. 10. On these materials, I find that there is substance in the plea raised on behalf of petitioner/husband that OP No.2 without any sufficient reason had withdrawn from the company of her husband. Having been posted in Armed Police, it was not feasible for him to keep the applicant/OP No.2 at the place of his posting. OP No.2 has herself deposed that she was ready to live at the place of posting of her husband and not in the matrimonial home. From this, it can be inferred that the O.P. No.2 had withdrawn from company of the husband without any sufficient cause. Had she been in some job at Ranchi, then there could have been some justification in living there, but withdrawing from the permanent home of her husband without justification cannot be rewarded with award of maintenance. 11. After all matrimonial home is not an alien place, but can be regarded as the permanent abode of the husband before he could find his own independent home and hearth. It is here that the newly wed strikes her root and starts her family life. When the husband was serving in the police as constable, to refuse living in the matrimonial home, without any justifiable cause, will bring the conduct of OP No.2 within the meaning of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. Such Court’s order of maintenance can only drive wedge in the marital relationship and run counter to the legislative intent behind Section 125(4) Cr.P.C and cannot strengthen family as an institution. The impugned order is set aside. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. : Mr. Haidar Ali, Advocate ----- Oral Order 08 / Dated : 28.06.2024 1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order of maintenance passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 152 of 2021 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.13,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2. 2. The petitioner is Constable in Jharkhand Armed Police and the order has been impugned mainly on the ground that opposite party no. 2 has withdrawn from the company of the petitioner without any reasonable cause and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance in terms of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has admitted in her deposition that she had only a brief stay in her matrimonial home for almost 10 months, thereafter she deserted her husband. She was married on 14.02.2020 and left the matrimonial only on 25.12.2020. She has deposed in paras 23 and 24 that she was not inclined to live in her matrimonial home and wanted to live with her husband at his place of posting and not in her matrimonial home. This was not practicable, considering the nature of job of the petitioner. Opposite party no. 2 had married the petitioner, very well knowing this fact that in the nature of job the petitioner, he could not have kept her at the place of posting, as most of time he used to be posted in a remote naxal area. In these circumstances, withdrawal from the matrimonial home amounted to withdrawal from the company of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that a Panchayati was held and it was the family members who had refused to admit opposite party no. 2 in the matrimonial home. AW 3 has been examined as a Panch. A.W.4 has deposed in para 20 that he does not know about the Surpanch and others. 5. Learned counsel on behalf of OP No.2 has defended the impugned order of payment of maintenance. It is submitted that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on account of harassment by her in-laws. Subsequent to the filing of this maintenance case, case under Section 498A IPC has also been
Decision
I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satayendra Uploaded