Dismissed

Khagen Mahato v. Jugni Devi

Jharkhand HC12 Sept 2017Cr.Rev./920/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision application against the rejection of a petition for alteration of maintenance order. The court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the application due to the petitioner's failure to explain non-appearance in the pending maintenance proceeding.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioner; the impugned order rejecting the Section 126(2) application stands affirmed.

Khagen Mahato Vs Jugni Devi — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 920 of 2017

¶2

¶3

Khagen Mahato, son of Late Niranjan Mahto, resident of village Dhangi tola Donguadih, P.O. Pradhan Khanta, P. S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad

¶4

Versus

¶5

Jugni Devi w/o Buddhi Mahato @ Baidyanath, resident of village Bandarchua, Tola – Tetultand, P.O. Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad … … Opp. Party

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Akshay Kr. Mahato, Advocate : For the Opp. Party

¶8

04/12.09.2017 Heard Mr. Akshay Kr. Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶9

This application is directed against the order dated 16.06.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Cr. Misc. Case No. 02 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶10

It appears that an ex parte order was passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which led to filing of Criminal Revision No. 520 of 2015 before this Court which was disposed of on 12.08.2016 with a liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Dhanbad under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 520 of 2015, an application was preferred by the petitioner which however was dismissed on 16.06.2017.

¶11

It appears from the impugned order dated 16.06.2017 that the petitioner was very much aware of the pendency of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as it has been noted in the order passed in anticipatory bail application on 26.09.2014. The petitioner moreover had failed to make any satisfactory explanation for not appearing in the case instituted by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in spite of the fact that he was aware of the pendency of the said application. Such fact having rightly been considered by the learned court below while rejecting the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 16.06.2017.

¶12

I do not find any reason to interfere in the same and thus this application is dismissed.

¶13

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶14

Umesh/-

Khagen Mahato v. Jugni Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khagen Mahato v. Jugni Devi

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

Shantina Minj Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Naushad Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Most Geeta Alias Mo Geeta Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bindeshwari Das Vs The Union Of India Through C B I

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Pawan Kumar Khan And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.