Petitioner challenged an ex-parte maintenance order awarded to his wife. Court dismissed the petition noting admission that no alimony was awarded at divorce, hence no impediment to maintenance order. Order quashed nothing.
Criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 1156 of 2018
Parmeshwar Gope @ Parmshwar Gope .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.Kajal Kumar @ Kajal Devi
.. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
......... For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, Advocate.
08/ 05.10.2023 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2 . The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.02.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Crl. Misc. No.08 of 2017 whereby and whereunder learned court has dismissed the petition preferred under Section 126 Cr. P.C. for recalling the ex-parte order dated 07.07.2017 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.395 of 2016 whereby and whereunder maintenance of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded against the petitioner in favour of O.P. No.2 who is his wife.
3 . The order of maintenance is under-challenge on two counts. Firstly the order was passed as ex-parte and secondly the amount of maintenance is excessive.
4 . It is argued that petitioner is serving as Private Secretary in the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur. Wife /Opp. Party has been divorced which has been granted on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Opp. Party No.2 (wife) had voluntarily deserted the petitioner (husband) and, therefore, she was not entitled for any maintenance. The order of divorce on the ground of desertion has not been challenged before any forum.
5 . Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has defended the impugned order on the ground that she was ousted from her matrimonial home and it was not a case of voluntarily desertion. She was a legally wedded wife and, therefore, Petitioner is liable to maintain his wife.
During course of the argument, it has been admitted that one-time alimony has not been awarded at the time of divorce. Therefore, there is no impediment in awarding the maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.
( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )
Sandeep/
Uploaded.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned maintenance order can be quashed on grounds of ex-parte order and excessiveness.
Whether voluntary desertion of the husband by the wife bars entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Parmeshwar Gope @ Parmshwar Gope
State of Jharkhand
Kajal Kumar @ Kajal Devi
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
