Dismissed

Ansari Orain v. State of Bihar

Jharkhand HC7 Feb 2017Cr.Rev./231/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the setting aside of a maintenance award. The court held no illegacity found in the lower court's refusal to believe letters suggesting paternity without expert opinion, affirming the revisional court's conclusion on lack of access.

What did the court decide?

The application under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is dismissed; the impugned judgment allowing no maintenance is affirmed.

Ansari Orain Vs State of Bihar — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

Criminal Revision No. 231 of 2000 (R)

¶2

¶3

In the matter of an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

¶4

¶5

Assari Orain, daughter of Budhram Oraon, resident of village Bendora Kirto Toli, Police Station Chainpur, District Gumla

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Sheo Prasad Bhagat, son of Mahadeo Bhagat, resident of village Bendora Kirto Toli, Police Station Chainpur, District Gumla

¶9

… ... Opposite Partis

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

¶12

Present:

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶14

By Court: Heard Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P.

¶15

This application is directed against the judgment dated 13.04.2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Gumla in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 28.08.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla in M. Case No. 21 of 1994 allowing the maintenance under Section 125 CrPC of Rs. 200/- per month to the minor son of the petitioner has been set aside.

¶16

It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is sufficient evidence on record that the opposite party no. 2 had clear access to the petitioner and there are sufficient evidence on record with respect to the communication made by the opposite party no. 2 but such fact has been disbelieved by the learned revisional court overturning the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate awarding an amount of Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance.

¶17

Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶18

It appears that although the learned Magistrate had allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. but the same was set

¶19

-2-

¶20

aside by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Gumla holding therein that it cannot be concluded that the child who was born was from the opposite party no. 2. The learned revisional court has referred to the various letters allegedly written by the opposite party no. 2 but the same has been disbelieved against all the letters seem not to have been written by the same person. It further appears that no opinion of handwriting expert was taken and in such circumstance the learned revisional court has rightly come to a conclusion disbelieving the version put forward by the petitioner. Thus on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence the learned revisional court has rightly concluded there was no access of the opposite party no. 2 to petitioner and, therefore, it was not possible to conclude for sure with respect to the paternity of the child.

¶21

In view of the proper appreciation made by the learned revisional court no illegality or infirmity could be detected in the impugned judgment dated 13.04.2000 passed in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 1995 and accordingly having found no merit in this application the same is, hereby, dismissed.

¶22

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶23

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 07th day of February,, 2017 Umesh/NAFR

Ansari Orain v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansari Orain v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Singh And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Mumtaz Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Babu Lal Ram Vs State of Bihar

Aklim Ansari and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Nirmal Bhagat Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ashok Yadav Alias Ashok Kr Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.