The High Court of Jharkhand rejected a petition for anticipatory bail in a matrimonial dispute alleging cruelty and dowry harassment. The court refused bail due to the petitioner's failure to pay maintenance arrears awarded by the Family Court despite having the opportunity to deposit the amount.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5713 of 2018
Md. Mumtaz Ansari ….. Petitioner
Versus
--------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate. For the State : APP For the O.P.No.2 : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Adv.
--------- C.A.V. on 29/11/2018 Pronounced on 03/12/2019
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with C.P. Case No.2824/2017, registered under Sections 498/34 of the IPC.
02. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant Jainab Khatoon married with petitioner, Mumtaz Ansari on 04.05.2012 according to Muslim rites and the father of the complainant given Rs. Two Lac cash and other household articles to the petitioner and his family at the time of marriage. After marriage she lived peacefully in her matrimonial house only for one year, but thereafter she was subjected to torture and cruelty both physically and mentally for demanding a car. Further stated that she blessed with two children and after 10 months back, the accused no.2 to 5 assaulted her and drive out from her matrimonial house along with the petitioner. Accordingly, she came to her parental home with the petitioner. Thereafter her father given Rs.90,000/- to the petitioner for running a business, but he fled away with the money. Thereafter a panchayti was also organised and ultimately she reported the matter to Mahila Police Station on 07.07.2019. On the basis of these allegations, the present case has been filed.
03. The present Anticipatory bail application has been filed on 16.08.2018, thereafter on 26.09.2018 notice was issued upon O.P.No.2 and the matter was fixed for 28.11.2018.
On 28.11.2018, both the parties along with their lawyers were present and reconciliation through process of mediation was explored.
-02-
On query O.P.No.2 submitted that she filed a Original Maintenance case No.362/2017 before learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, whereby petitioner was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to his wife (O.P.No.2) and Rs.4500/-each per months to his two children total amounting to Rs.14,000/- per month as maintenance amount from the date of filing of the application i.e. September, 2017.
From September, 2017 to November, 2018 total 15 months and the arrears of the maintenance amount comes to Rs.2,10,000/-, but the petitioner did not pay a single penny to the O.P.No.2.
So, in order to test the bonfadie of the petitioner, petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.1,05,000/- before the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, latest by 19.12.2018 and the matter was directed to be listed on 11.01.2019. Thereafter several adjournments was given.
Further on 09.08.2019, both the parties were present and in terms of order passed in Original Maintenance Case No.362/17 the total arrears of maintenance amount from September, 2017 to August, 2019 i.e. 24 months comes to Rs.3,36,000/- out of which petitioner has deposited Rs.1,05,000/- and the petitioner has to pay Rs.2,31,000/- to the O.P.No.2.
On query both the parties were ready to sit together to settle their dispute with mutual consent and the matter was referred to the Member Secretary, JHALSA, for reconciliation through process of mediation.
On 17.09.2019 mediation report dated 07.09.2019 received which reveals that the dispute of the parties could not be settled and the matter was fixed for 24.09.2019 to be heard on merit under the heading "For Admission.
On 24.09.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner challenged the order passed in Original Maintenance Case No.362 of 2017 by
-03-
filing Criminal Revision No.1314 of 2018 which is still pending.
04. During course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the entire allegations made in the complaint petition is vague, cryptic and omnibus in nature. Further submitted that the petitioner is ready for reconciliation through process of mediation.
05. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
06. It appears that despite best efforts made by this Court, there is no reconciliation between the parties and the petitioner is not depositing the maintenance amount i.e. Rs.14000/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and two children awarded by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad passed in Original Maintenance case No.362/2017 and the total arrears of maintenance amount from September, 2017 to November, 2019 i.e. 27 months comes to Rs.3,78,000/out of which petitioner has deposited only Rs.1,05,000/and Rs.273,000/- is still due.
07. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
Fahim/
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite pending maintenance proceedings and refusal to deposit arrears.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Mumtaz Ansari
Jainab Khatoon
The State of Jharkhand
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
