Disposed

Pawan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Aug 2021Cr.Rev./1410/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court permitted petitioner to withdraw criminal revision regarding maintenance order. Directed lower court to decide merit within four weeks if application filed. Released deposited sum as litigation costs to opposite party.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed to be withdrawn. Lower court directed to decide merit within four weeks. Deposited Rs.25,000 released as ad-interim costs.

Pawan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.1410 of 2018

¶2

---

¶3

Pawan Kumar … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand 2. Jyotika Moitro @ Jyotika Devi 3. Shreya Sharma … … Opposite Parties

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶7

--- For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Adv.

¶8

---

¶9

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

¶10

---

¶11

10/03.08.2021: In view of the proviso of section 126 sub clause 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present revision application with a liberty to pursue his remedy before the court below.

¶12

Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is quoted herein below:-

¶13

“Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper”.

¶14

From perusal of the records, it appears that the impugned order is dated 04.08.2018, while the present revision application has been filed on 18.09.2018 i.e. within the period of limitation. Further, vide order dated 28.03.2019, the petitioner had been asked to deposit Rs.25,000/- as adinterim protection.

¶15

In view of submission of the parties and considering the materials available on record, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present criminal revision with a direction to the court below to decide the issue on merit, if the application is filed under Section 126 sub clause 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 within four weeks from today.

¶16

¶17

Further, the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the petitioner is directed to be released in favour of the opposite party no.2 as an ad-interim litigation costs.

¶18

With the above observations and directions, the present Criminal Revision stands disposed of.

¶19

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶20

Amar/-

Pawan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sidharth Sankar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Hazra Alias Bajrangi Alias Rohit Kumar Hazra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Kumar Singh Vs Baij Nath Singh

MD Firoz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand