Disposed

Rojina Khatoon v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Oct 2020W.P.(Cr.)/22/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this maintenance matter, the High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the lower court for execution. The Court observed that the petitioner must show, with relevant documents, that the husband is a man of means and is deliberately avoiding payment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach court below with documents showing respondent is a man of means and is deliberately avoiding payment.

Rojina Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (Cr.) No. 22 of 2020

¶3

Rojina Khatoon…..….......

¶4

Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Home, Prison & Disaster Management Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

The Director General of Police, Jharkhand

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj

¶10

The Officer-in-Charge, Radhanagar P.S., Sahebganj

¶11

Hatim Ansari……….. Respondent(s)

¶12

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen Through:-Video Conferencing

¶13

…… For the Petitioner : Mr., Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K.Choudhary, AC to SC-II

¶14

5/05.10.2020 The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to ignore the defects and

¶16

take up the matter on merits.

¶17

Defects stand ignored for the present.

¶18

In this application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to comply the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of this petitioner.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been deserted by her husband and there is a small child. In a maintenance case being O.M.C. No. 219 of 2016, the concerned Family Judge has awarded maintenance in favour of the petitioner, but in spite of the said order the husband of this petitioner, i.e. respondent no.6, is not paying the same. He further submits that an execution was also filed where the husband took a plea that he is unable to pay the maintenance amount, for which he was also sent in custody for a period of one month, but nothing happened. He further submits that respondent no. 6, i.e. the husband of this petitioner has also performed second marriage, which goes to show that he is able to maintain a family and he is a man of means.

¶20

Considering the submission of the petitioner, I find that there is provision of law for executing the order passed in the maintenance case. The petitioner should approach the court below alongwith the relevant documents to show that the respondent no. 6 is a man of means and is deliberately avoiding to pay the maintenance.

¶21

If such an application is filed by the petitioner, the court below

¶22

-2-

¶23

will consider the same and will pass an order and also will take all coercive steps to see that the maintenance is paid either from respondent no. 6, i.e. the husband of this petitioner or from his property.

¶24

With the aforesaid direction and observation, this criminal writ application stands disposed of.

¶25

Ananda Sen, J )

¶26

Mukund/-cp.3

Rojina Khatoon v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rojina Khatoon 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

Ratan Lal Mahto Alias Ratan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Janardan Pandey Vs Human Resources Department

Idul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tulsi Kewat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baidyanath Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police