Prem Sagar Kumar Chouhan @ Prem Sagar Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Khushbu Devi, wife of Prem Sagar Kumar Chouhan
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1446 of 2023 Prem Sagar Kumar Chouhan @ Prem Sagar Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of Umesh Chouhan, resident of Muraidih Colony, Quarter No.818, P.O. Pochri, P.S. Barora, District – Dhanbad … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Khushbu Devi, wife of Prem Sagar Kumar Chouhan, resident of Qtr. No.865, Nichitpur Township, P.O. Bansjora, P.S. East Basuria, District - Dhanbad … … Opposite Parties CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate --- 05/03.07.2024 Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the judgment dated 18-08-2023, passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 398 of 2022, by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Dhanbad, whereby the said petition has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 and Rs.2000/- per month to her child until she gets married or gainfully employed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, has submitted that the applicant (Opposite Party No.2) had filed a criminal case, being Barora P.S Case No. 45 of 2020, and there was a compromise between the parties, but immediately thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 had withdrawn herself from the Petitioner, although the Petitioner was throughout ready to keep his wife and the child. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court finds that the relationship of husband and wife between the parties is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that a child was born out of wedlock, who is residing with the Opposite Party No. 2. 5. The applicant had stated that the marriage was solemnized on 22-11-2017, and thereafter, she lived with her husband in a matrimonial house, and a child was also born out of wedlock aged about three and a half years; there was a demand of dowry and cruelty from the side of the petitioner and ultimately, she was forcibly ousted from the matrimonial home with her child and having no source of income, she stayed with her parents. She claimed that the petitioner earns Rs.30,000/- per month from private job and had Rs.2,00,000/- per annum income from agriculture. She claimed a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month for maintenance and Rs.6,000/- per month for minor daughter. 6. The petitioner had appeared before the court and filed his show cause. He admitted the marriage and the birth of the child and that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 were living separately. He had asserted that on 05.08.2020, the applicant had lodged a criminal case vide Barora P.S. case No.45 of 2020 in which he was granted bail on the basis of compromise. Thereafter, the applicant withdrew herself from his society without any reasonable cause and refused to lead conjugal life, and therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance. During evidence, altogether two witnesses were examined from the side of the applicant; she herself and her mother and the petitioner also examined two witnesses, himself and his mother. 7. This Court finds that the learned court has considered the evidences on record and during cross-examination of the applicant, it has been recorded that she stated that she went to her matrimonial house on compromise and stayed there for a period of two months; she was banished from her matrimonial house thereafter. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was also examined and during his chief, he stated that he had put a condition that if the applicant withdrew the case, he would take her back and he had testified that he had income of Rs.7,000/- only from tuition. The affidavit regarding assets and liabilities was filed in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh versus Neha reported in (2021)2 SCC 324. 2 8. The learned court after considering the materials on record and also considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Samima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan reported in 2015 (3) BBCJ (SC) 127, wherein it has been held that if the husband is healthy, able-bodied, and is in position to support himself, he is under legal obligation to support his wife, and ultimately, fixed an amount of Rs.2,500/- for the wife and Rs. 2,000/- for the minor child. 9. The impugned judgement reveals that the applicant had filed a criminal case against the petitioner and went to her matrimonial house pursuant to a compromise entered at the time of grant of bail to the petitioner. The applicant deposed that thereafter she was thrown out from her matrimonial house by the petitioner and the petitioner during his evidence deposed that he would take back the applicant if she withdrew the case. This Court is of the considered view that the applicant cannot be compelled to withdraw the case filed by her as a condition by the husband to take her back in the matrimonial home. The materials discussed in the impugned judgement reveal that the applicant made efforts to live with the petitioner as she went to the matrimonial house by entering into compromise, still the petitioner tortured her and threw the applicant out of the matrimonial house and is insisting that the applicant should withdraw the case filed against the petitioner. 10. Thus, the argument of the petitioner that the petitioner was through out ready to keep the applicant with dignity is devoid of any merits and the learned court has rightly held in para 11 of the impugned judgement that the petitioner intentionally ousted the applicant from his house and has tortured her, and therefore, the applicant was totally justified in living separately. 11. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, this Court finds that only a small amount of maintenance has been fixed for the wife (Rs.2,500/- per month) and the child (Rs.2000/- per month) after referring to evidence filed in terms of judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh versus Neha (supra) and also the various judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court 3 referring to the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and children. 12. This Court finds no illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the impugned judgement calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 13. Accordingly, this criminal revision is hereby dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email. Saurav (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4