Dismissed

Chhotu Gope v. Rekha Devi Gope

Jharkhand HC12 Apr 2019Cr.Rev./1047/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision petition challenging an order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Family Court's finding that the wife is entitled to maintenance given the husband's income and her dependence, despite allegations of domestic torture and pending 498A proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order dated 03.09.2014 directing maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the wife confirmed.

Chhotu Gope Vs Rekha Devi Gope — Domestic Violence | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1047 of 2014

¶2

¶3

Chhotu Gope, S/o Sudhir Gope, R/o Village – Karitand, P.O.- Pradhan Khanta, P.S.- Baliapur, Distrct-Dhanbad

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rekha Devi (Gope), D/o Sri Jagarnath Gope, W/o Sri Chhotu Gope, R/o Village- Murgbani, P.S. Jangalpur, P.S.- Govindpur, District- Dhanbad

¶7

...... Opposite Party

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

--- For the Petitioner : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate : Mr. Rajiv K. Karan, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate ---

¶11

Order No. 04: Dated 12^th April, 2019

¶12

The instant application has been preferred challenging the order dated 03.09.2014 passed by the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, whereby the learned Court below has passed the order of maintenance and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2500/- per month to the Opposite Party.

¶13

Factual Matrix

¶14

The petitioner and opposite party are legally married and their marriage was solemnized in the month of May, 2005 according to Hindu rites and customs. The case of the opposite party before the learned Court below was that the petitioner (husband) has completely neglected the opposite party (wife), and he is not giving any maintenance to her. It is further alleged by the opposite party that the petitioner used to torture her for dowry and finally she was driven out of the marital home. Further, case of the opposite party is that, the petitioner is earning Rs.10,000/from his business and Rs.50,000/- per annum from his agriculture income while the opposite party (wife) has got no means of livelihood.

¶15

The petitioner (husband) appeared before the learned Court below and filed show-cause stating inter alia that the opposite party (wife) is residing at her parent’s house at her own will. It has been further stated by the petitioner before the learned Court below that the opposite party has instituted a criminal case u/s 498A IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Act. The said case is still pending for mediation but the opposite party (wife) did

¶16

¶17

not appear in the mediation center. The petitioner further stated that he is willing to settle the matter.

¶18

Before the learned Court below opposite party (wife) was examined as P.W.1. She has stated regarding dowry demand and torture by the petitioner (husband) and his family members. She has further stated in her evidence that the petitioner’s family went to the extent of not giving proper food to her. In her cross-examination she has admitted that her father-in-law is retired Gangman of railway. She has also stated in her cross-examination that in view of the facts that she has been continuously tortured by the petitioner’s family she has filed a case against them and she is not ready to live with her (husband).

¶19

The father of the opposite party (wife) has been examined as P.W.2 who has fully supported the case of the wife specially the part of torture faced by his daughter, so much so that he has stated in his crossexamination that even a bond is filed by the petitioner then also he will not allow her daughter to go with him. The other prosecution witness P.W.3 has stated about the income of the petitioner stating inter alia that he earns about Rs.8,000/- to 9,000/- per month by working as mason apart from his income from agriculture.

¶20

The petitioner himself appeared as O.P.W.1 and has admitted the factum of marriage. However, he has stated that he is not getting regular employment and there is no fixed income. He has further admitted that a criminal case has been brought by the opposite party (wife).

¶21

From perusal of the aforesaid facts and evidence recorded in the impugned order, it is crystal clear that there was a legal marriage between the parties. After marriage, the opposite party (wife) was subjected to torture which laid to filing of the criminal case by her. The said case is still pending before the Competent Court. It is also clear from the records that the petitioner is earning about Rs.8,000 to Rs. 9,000/- per month excluding his income from Agriculture. On the other hand, the opposite party (wife) has no source of income and fully dependent on her father. It further transpires from the record that the extent of torture was so much that she is not ready to go with her husband and even she did not participate in the mediation center and settle the matter.

¶22

¶23

It is to be noted that the requirements provided in Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the purpose, object and scope thereof being to prevent vagrancies by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a normal and legitimate claim to support are satisfied. When the woman leaves her matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many comforts sometimes her faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels that she has lost her best friend. In the instant case also the wife must have felt the same situation which forced her to refuse to stay with her husband pursuant to continuous torture by the petitioner and his family members which ultimately resulted in filing of criminal case under Section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Learned Trial Court while discussing the case has rightly observed the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am of the considered opinion that the opposite party (wife) fulfills all the parameters for entitlement of maintenance and admittedly, the petitioner and his family members tortured her to the extent that she was forced to file a criminal case against them. From the evidence, it is also clear that the petitioner is earning at least more than Rs.10,000/- at present as such, even the amount of maintenance is not excessive in the present facts and circumstances. I find no error in the impugned order and same is confirmed.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant application is, hereby, dismissed on contest.

¶26

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶27

Raja /

Chhotu Gope v. Rekha Devi Gope

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu Gope v. Rekha Devi Gope

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

Tarkeshwar Narayan Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Ashwini Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yogendra Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ganesh Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Someshwar Yadav Alias Someshwar Inder Yadav Vs Mrs Sunita Someshwar Yadav

Pramod Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.