Partly allowed

Ramchandra Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Aug 2023Cr.Rev./317/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision led to the modification of a Family Court maintenance order following a settled compromise where the petitioner paid Rs. 10,00,500 as full and final settlement to the wife. The court also directed the petitioner to look after his children's welfare.

What did the court decide?

Modified order dated 18.01.2019 to allow Rs. 10,00,500 as full and final maintenance; directed petitioner to look after children's education and welfare.

Ramchandra Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 317 of 2020

Ramchandra Thakur

..… Petitioner

Versus ….. Opp. Parties ----------

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Rajkumari Devi 3.Law Kumar Thakur 4.Anju Kumari

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate ---------

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT IN COURT

¶11

07/14.08.2023 Initially this criminal revision was filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Original Maintenance Case No. 130 of 2015 by which the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of O.P. No. 2 to 4 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to O.P. No. 2 as maintenance from the date of filing of the application and to pay the same regularly by 15^th of every succeeding month.

¶12

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh and Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

¶13

-2-

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of this Criminal Revision Application the case was settled and consequently supplementary affidavit was filed on 07.8.2023. It is further submitted that the case was compromised between the parties on payment of Rs. 10,00,500/(Rupees Ten lac fifty thousand) and as such the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Original Maintenance Case No. 130/2015 may be modified.

¶15

4. No objection has been raised by the learned A.P.P.

¶16

5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 also supports the factum of compromise. 6. It appears that the case between the petitioners and the O.P. No. 2 has been compromised. It appears that the petitioner is husband and Opposite Parties are wife and sons of the petitioner.

¶17

7. Paragraph 2, 3, 4 of the supplementary affidavit dated 07.8.2023 read as follows:

¶18

“ 2. That in terms of the settlement dated 11.02.2019 arrived between the parties before the mediator (Annexure-2), the petitioner paid the opposite party no.2 the following amounts as a full and final settlement:-

¶19

-3-

¶20

Date	Amount	Mode
11.2.2019	Rs.2,00,000/-	Cash
13.5.2019	Rs.2,00,000/-	Cash
18.1.2020	Rs.1,00,000/-	Cheque
*24.7.2020*	*Rs.2,00,000/-*	*Cheque*
6.2.2021	Rs.50,000/-	Digital
25.3.2021	Rs.1,50,000/-	Cheque
17.7.2021	Rs.1,00,500/-	Demand Draft
	Total- Rs.10,00,500/-

¶21

3. That in view of the said payments made by the petitioner to the opposite party no. 2 as per the settlement, the impugned order cannot sustain.

¶22

4. That this affidavit may be treated as part of the main application.”

¶23

8. It transpires that the petitioner has paid Rs.10,00,500/- to the O.P. No. 2 as full and final settlement.

¶24

9. Therefore, in view of the fact that the petitioner as well as the O.P. No. 2 has come to a settlement and the petitioner has already paid Rs. 10,00,500/- (Rupees Ten lac five hundred only) to O.P. No. 2 towards full and final settlement as per supplementary affidavit dated 07.08.2023, order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Original Maintenance Case No. 130/2015 is modified to the extent that the total maintenance

¶25

-4-

¶26

amount towards full and final settlement of Rs. 10,00,500/shall be the amount of total maintenance so far as the maintenance part of the impugned order is concerned. 10. However, in view of the judgment in Rajnesh Versus Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, it is desirable that the petitioner may look after the education and welfare of both of his sons.

¶27

11. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in terms of the compromise and the impugned order dated 18.01.2019, in Original Maintenance Case No. 130/2015, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶28

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶29

s.m.

Ramchandra Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandra Thakur 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suleman Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bahadur Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jai Prakash Dalmia Vs State of Jharkhand

Parmeshwar Ram Vs State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Batasi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand