Allowed

Jai Hind Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Aug 2020A.B.A./412/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail application filed by a petitioner apprehending arrest for offences under Section 498-A IPC. The court made the interim order absolute conditioned on the petitioner continuing monthly maintenance payments to his wife and son, expressly stating this payment does not reflect capacity to pay in a separate maintenance suit.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 31.01.2020 made absolute on condition of paying Rs. 15,000 per month to wife; bail allowed.

Jai Hind Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A. B. A. No. 412 of 2020

¶3

Jai Hind Oraon, son of Sri Genda Oraon, permanent resident of Village-Chharda, Sisai, PO-Chharda, P.S.-Sadar, DistrictGumla (Jharkhand) … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Puja Toppo, wife of Sri Jaihind Oraon, daughter of Nandu Tirkey, resident of Ratu, Kathitanr, PS-Ratu, PO-Ratu, DistrictRanchi … Opposite Parties

¶7

¶8

(Through VC)

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, Adv. For the State : Mr. P.K. Verma, A.P.P -------

¶11

04/ 07.08.2020 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection to Complaint Case No.615 of 2019 for the offences punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

In the Complaint Case No.615 of 2019, cognizance of the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken by the learned trial Magistrate and the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner vide A.B.P No.1790 of 2019 has been rejected vide order dated 13.12.2019.

¶13

Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 20.05.2020 the petitioner has started paying Rs.15,000/- per month for maintenance of his wife and the son, however, O.P. No.2 has yet not entered her appearance in the present proceeding and therefore this anticipatory bail application should be allowed.

¶14

By an order dated 31.01.2020, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner and by an order dated 20.05.2020 the aforesaid order was continued on the condition of the petitioner paying Rs.15,000/- per month to his wife and the son.

¶15

In the above circumstances, I find no reason to

¶16

¶17

adjourn hearing of this anticipatory bail application awaiting appearance of O.P. No.2 and, accordingly, interim order dated 31.01.2020 is made absolute, on the condition that the petitioner shall continue to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to his wife.

¶18

However, this quantum of money shall not be taken as reflection on capacity of the petitioner to pay maintenance which may be an issue in any other proceeding seeking maintenance by the wife and the son of the petitioner.

¶19

A.B.A No.412 of 2020 stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶20

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶21

R.K.

Jai Hind Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Hind Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Oraon Vs Amrita Kumari And Anr.

Vijay Shankar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khusbu Parveen Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rajendra Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Tantubai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sattar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand