Partly allowed

Urmila Devi And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC9 Aug 2021Cr.Rev./12/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment condones a delay of 221 days in filing a criminal revision. The High Court modified the Family Court order to allow maintenance retrospectively from the date of institution of the maintenance case rather than its final date.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance ordered to be payable from the date of institution of the maintenance case i.e. 02.06.2011.

Urmila Devi And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And… — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2018

¶3

¶4

Urmila Devi

¶5

Archana Kumari

¶6

Shailesh Kumar … … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Suresh Prasad Mehta … … Opp. Parties

¶10

With

¶11

Criminal Revision No. 401 of 2017

¶12

--Suresh Prasad Mehta … … Petitioner Versus

¶13

The State of Jharkhand

¶14

Urmila Devi

¶15

Archana Kumari

¶16

Shailesh Kumar … … Opposite Parties

¶17

CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶18

…….

¶19

For the Petitioner : - Mr. Awnish Shankar, Adv. .( Cr. Revision No. 12 of 2018 ) Mr. Rohit, Adv.( Cr. Revision No. 401 of 2017) For the State : - Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP Mr. M. K. Mishra, APP. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rohit, Adv. ( Cr. Revision No. 12 of 2018 ) For the O.P. No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Adv. ( Cr. Revision No. 401 of 2017 )

¶20

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities were good.

¶21

¶22

I. A. No. 993 of 2018 (in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2018)

¶23

08/09.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

The instant interlocutory application has been filed in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2018 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 221 days in preferring the present criminal revision.

¶25

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to non payment of maintenance since 2011, they have not filed the revision petition within time.

¶26

Learned counsel for the opposite parties has not opposed the prayer so far as condonation of delay is concerned.

¶27

Considering the nature of dispute and reasons assigned in the present interlocutory application, I. A. No. 993 of 2018 (in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2018) stands allowed and disposed of. Delay of 221 days in preferring the present criminal revision is hereby condoned.

¶28

Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2018

¶29

With

¶30

Criminal Revision No. 401 of 2017

¶31

Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

¶32

Both criminal revisions have been filed against the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by Smt. Rita Mishra, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in Maintenance Case No. 53 of 2011 whereby maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month has been awarded to the wife and their two children. Criminal Revision No. 401 of 2017 has been filed by the husband and Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2018 has been filed by the wife.

¶33

From perusal of the order sheet of the Court below, it appears that findings have been recorded that Suresh Prasad Mehta and Urmila Devi are legally wedded husband and wife and out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with one daughter and two sons. As per the deposition of husband, one son is residing with him and one daughter and one son are residing with his wife. Salary slip of July, 2018 has been brought on record, which suggests that husband, who is a constable in Jharkhand Police, is getting Rs. 39,000/- per month as salary. The Court below has ordered that one son and one daughter, who are residing with his wife, are entitled for maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month each and his wife is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 4000/- i.e totalling Rs. 9,000/- per month.

¶34

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the husband that the husband is ready and willing to keep his wife, but she is not ready to live with him and as such, she is not entitled for maintenance. Quantum of maintenance has not been challenged.

¶35

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the wife that the wife has approached this Court for grant of maintenance from the date of institution of maintenance case i.e. on 02.06.2011 and not from the date of order passed in Maintenance case No. 53 of 2011 on 22.02.2017, which has been made by the Court below. For this purpose, learned counsel for the wife has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnish Vs. Neha and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 569.

¶36

Learned counsel for the husband has opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that Court below has rightly given maintenance from the date of order.

¶37

Having heard learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the records, it appears that husband has taken plea that the marriage was not valid and as such wife is not entitled for maintenance. However, the husband has accepted itself in his deposition that one son is residing with him and one daughter and one son are residing with his wife. This stand of the husband itself amounts to cruelty when he has taken a plea that marriage between the parties is not valid in spite of three children and as such, the stand of the wife

¶38

is justified in not residing with him. The Court below after considering the salary of the husband, has granted the quantum of maintenance of Rs. 9,000/per month is reasonable and warrants no interference.

¶39

So far as prayer for grant of maintenance from the date of institution of the maintenance case is concerned, as per the judgment of the Apex Court (supra), maintenance has to be granted from the date of institution of the maintenance case and as such the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in Maintenance Case No. 53 of 2011 is modified to the extent that the maintenance will be payable from the date of institution of maintenance case i.e 02.06.2011.

¶40

In view of the above observations and discussion, the impugned order dated 22.02.2017 passed by Smt. Rita Mishra, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in Maintenance Case No. 53 of 2011 is modified to the extend indicated hereinabove. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Petitions stand disposed of.

¶41

(Rajesh Kumar, J)

¶42

kamlesh/

Urmila Devi And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Devi And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashwini Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Keshav Sao Alias Keshav Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sameer Dang Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxman Prasad Mandal Alias Laxman Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Antu Chaudhary Alias Puttu Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Prasad Singh Alias Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand