Allowed

Zakrias Tigga Alias Zecharius Tigga v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC10 Nov 2023Cr.Rev./516/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision application challenged a Family Court order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance. The High Court, observing that the respondent-willfully deserted the petitioner in 1990, leading to his remarriage, and noting the respondent's independent income, held she was not entitled to maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Family Court setting aside moot point and directing maintenance was set aside; Criminal Revision Application allowed.

Zakrias Tigga Alias Zecharius Tigga Vs State of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 516 of 2011

¶4

Zakrias Tigga @ Zecharius Tigga … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus -

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Smt. Salomi Tigga ... … Opposite Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : M/s. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the State : M/s. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate : M/s. Azam, Advocate

¶12

¶13

C.A.V. on 19.08.2023 Pronounced on 10.11.2023

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioner has filed this revision application against the judgment dated 20.05.2011, passed by Sri Sanjay Prasad learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, (As his Lordship was then), in Maintenance Case No. 90 of 2006 filed by the opposite party, namely Salomi Tigga, whereby and wherein, the Principal Judge Family Court, Ranchi directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2500/- per month by way of maintenance to the opposite party along with the arrear amount from 20.05.2011 within 3 months from the date of passing of the order.

¶16

The opposite party no. 2 Salomi Tigga has claimed to be wife of the petitioner. She has stated that their marriage was solemnized on 22.02.1970. There were two children out of the wedlock, a son namely Prakash Tigga and a daughter namely Dawlin Tigga. The petitioner was working as a registration clerk S- 5 grade in Ispat Hospital Mecon Township having monthly salary of Rs. 18000/-. Since last three years i.e., since 2003 the opposite party no. 2 was residing separately from the petitioner with her children. she came to know that the petitioner was having illicit relationship with a girl who was presently residing with him in quarter number

¶17

¶18

C-118, Shyamali Colony, Mecon. She has claimed a maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the petitioner.

¶19

The petitioner appeared on notice and has filed contesting show cause. The marriage between the parties have not been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner was minor at the time of occurrence and their marriage was not solemnized as per the tribal customary law. It has been pleaded that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 was void-ab-initio. It has also been pleaded that the opposite party no. 2 subsequently eloped with one Meghwa Munda and started living with him as wife. After her elopement in the year 1990, when the whereabouts of the opposite party no. 2 was not known to the petitioner, he presumed that either she has died or she has left his company forever and subsequently he solemnized marriage with one Neoran Tirkey in the year 1990. From this wedlock he has two daughters and one son. It has further been pleaded that the monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs. 6000/- and not Rs.18000/- as claimed by the opposite party no. 2. It was further pleaded after the death of Meghwa Munda the opposite party no. 2 started haunting the petitioner. It has further been pleaded that the opposite party no. 2 was employed in Bharat spun Pipe, Lalpur Ranchi having a monthly income of Rs. Rs.3000/-. Daughter of the opposite party no. 2 was also working. On these grounds, it was prayed that the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no. 2 was not liable to be maintained and was liable to be dismissed.

¶20

In order to prove its case both the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the record, the learned Principal Judge, family court, Ranchi allowed the application filed by the opposite party no. 2 under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 2500/- along with arrears from 03.08.2006.

¶21

From the perusal of the oral testimony of the witnesses examined by the opposite party no. 2 It transpires that the opposite party no. 2 Salomi Tigga has been examined as P.W.1. She has

¶22

¶23

reiterated her case as made out in the petition filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. She has stated that she was married to the petitioner on 22.02.1970 and there are two children out of the wedlock. She has stated that the petitioner was employed in Mecon Ranchi as a registration clerk having monthly salary of Rs. 18000/-. She has proved her marriage certificate with the petitioner which has been marked as Ext.-1. She has further proved the baptism certificate of her son which is Ext.- 2 and birth certificate of her daughter, which is the Ext.- 2/1. She has claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- from the petitioner. She has been cross-examined at length. At paragraph 18, she has stated that she is working as maid in Bharat Spun Pipe Limited Ranchi. She has further stated that in the baptism certificate name of god father and godmother is necessary to be mentioned. She has denied that the certificates adduced by her in evidence are fake.

¶24

Fransis Minz P.W.2 has stated that the opposite party no. 2 was married with the petitioner their marriage was solemnized in G.E.L. Church, Karra. They have got two children out of the wedlock.

¶25

Prakash Tigga P.W.3 is son of the opposite party no. 2. He has stated that his father works in Ispat Hospital in Mecon Limited as registration clerk having monthly income of Rs.18000/and his mother maintains him and his sister by working as maid in various household. In his cross-examination he has stated that his mother works in Bharat Spun Pipe Limited.

¶26

Dowlin Tigga P.W.4 has stated that she is the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 she along with her brother and her mother are residing separately with her father since last three years. She has further stated that her father Zakrias Tigga @ Zecharius Tigga works in Ispat hospital Mecon having monthly income of Rs. 18000/-. In her cross-examination she has stated that she is working in Upper Bazar in a garment shop. She has further stated that her family resides at old Hazaribagh in house of Modi who runs factory of manufacturing of pipe. Her mother is working there since last

¶27

¶28

three years. She has denied that her mother had eloped with Meghwa Munda.

¶29

Jolen Burh P.W.5 has stated that he is chairman of G.E.L. Church, Karra. He has brought the register on the record in which the marriage between the parties have been entered. However, in his cross-examination he has stated that register was opened in the year 2001. To the court question he says that marriage between the parties was solemnized earlier, but he has entered the fact of their marriage in the register in the year 2003.

¶30

From the perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the opposite party no. 2, it transpires that marriage certificate has been filed showing that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.02.1970 in G.E.L. Church, Karra. This is not the original certificate, but a copy of the marriage certificate. The baptism certificate of Alexander Prakash Tigga, the son of the opposite party no. 2 shows father name of Alexander Prakash Tigga to be Zakrias Tigga @ Zecharius Tigga. However, this baptism certificate was issued on 29.06.2001. The baptism certificate of Downlin Tigga daughter of the opposite party no. 2 shows her father's name to be Zakrias Tigga @ Zecharius Tigga. This certificate has been issued on 11.05.2007.

¶31

From the perusal of the oral testimony of the witnesses adduced by the petitioner, it transpires that Ajay Karketta D.W.1, Nago pahano D.W.2, Rakesh Tigga D.W.3, Deo Mohan Baraik D.W.4, Budhwa Oraon D.W.5, all have stated that the petitioner Zakrias Tigga @ Zecharius Tigga was married to Neoran Tirkey, their marriage was solemnized in the year 1990. They have stated that since last several years they have seen the petitioner residing with Neoran Tirkey in his quarter at Mecon. They have further stated that they have never seen the opposite party no. 2 residing with the petitioner. They have denied that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2. They have been cross- examined at length.

¶32

Ajay Karketta D.W.1 in his cross-examination has

¶33

¶34

stated that he cannot say that the opposite party no. 2 was married to the petitioner or not.

¶35

Nago Pahan D.W.2 has stated that he does not know Salomi Tigga and he cannot say as to whom she was married.

¶36

Rakesh Tigga D.W.3 has stated that the petitioner had married twice, but he cannot say the date of her marriage.

¶37

Deo Mohan Baraik D.W.4 in his cross-examination has stated that he is not aware that the opposite party no. 2 was wife of the petitioner.

¶38

Budhwa Oraon D.W.5 in his cross-examination has stated that he cannot say as to when the petitioner was married.

¶39

Peter Anand Kumar Ekka D.W.6 has stated that he works in Mecon Limited as Senior Designer. He has stated that Zakrias Tigga @ Zecharius Tigga was nowhere related to Salomi Tigga. He has further stated that Zakrias Tigga @ Zecharius Tigga was married to Neoran Tirkey in the year 1990. He was present in the marriage. He has further stated that in the year 2003. Salomi Tigga has made a written complaint stating that she was wife of Zakrias Tigga @ Zecharius Tigga. He had inquired about the matter and had submitted a report. He had found claim of the opposite party no. 2 that she was married to the petitioner to be false. He has further stated that Zakrias Tigga @ Zecharius Tigga was residing with his wife Neoran Tirkey in quarter no. C-118 and they have got three children out of the wedlock. He has been cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination he has stated that the petitioner was getting a monthly salary of Rs.15000/-

¶40

The petitioner has been examined as P.W.7., he has not specifically denied his marriage with opposite party no. 2. He has stated that the marriage was not solemnized as per tribal customs. Thereafter, he has stated that the marriage certificate Ext.- 1 adduced by the opposite party no. 2 was fake. He has further stated that the opposite party no. 2 has eloped with Meghwa Munda and after his death in the year 2003, she started claiming to be wife of the petitioner. He has further stated that the opposite party no. 2

¶41

¶42

works in Bharat Spun pipe limited having monthly income of Rs. 4000/-

¶43

From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, it is evident that the petitioner has admitted that he was married to the opposite party no. 2. Though, the marriage certificate has subsequently been denied and petitioner claims it to be fake but the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 has been admitted. The petitioner has also been able to show that he subsequently married Neoran Tirkey in the year 1990 i.e., after 20 years of marriage. He claims that the opposite party no. 2 eloped with Meghwa Munda. The baptism certificate of a Alexander Prakash Tigga and Downlin Tirkey was issued in the year 2001 and 2007 respectively. Whereas, their date of birth was 1978 and 1982 respectively. The baptism certificate does not find mention the name of the godfather and godmother of both the children as such this certificate cannot be relied upon. The witnesses of the petitioner have stated that they have not seen the opposite party no. 2 and her children residing with the petitioner, rather the petitioner was residing with his present wife in his official quarter at Mecon Limited. Though, the opposite party no. 2 has tried to make out a case that she was residing with the petitioner and her children till the year 2003 but the people who were supposed to know about this fact, have categorically stated that they had not seen the opposite party no. 2 residing with the petitioner. They had only seen the petitioner residing with his wife Neoran Tirkey and their three children. The petitioner has been able to prove that he is married to Neoran Tirkey and out of this wedlock he has three childrens. He has also been able to show that he was residing with the present wife in quarter number C-118, Shyamali Colony, Mecon along with his three children. The petitioner is residing with Neoran Tirkey since the date of his marriage, it is apparent that the opposite party no. 2 was not residing with the petitioner since 1990. Whatever may be the reason, the opposite party no. 2 has filed this case in the year 2006. She has not been able to show that she

¶44

¶45

resided with petitioner till the year 2003. The opposite party no. 2 Salomi Tigga and both her children have stated that she worked in factory of Bharat Spun Pipe Limited having her own income. Both her children are adults.

¶46

From the entire facts of the case; it is apparent that the opposite party no. 2 had willfully deserted the petitioner in the year 1990 due to which he subsequently remarried. It further appears that the opposite party no. 2 has her own monthly income. In view of these facts, she is not entitled to maintenance from petitioner.

¶47

Accordingly; the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge; Family Court Ranchi is set aside. This Criminal Revision Application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶48

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶49

Saurabh

¶50

Uploaded

Zakrias Tigga Alias Zecharius Tigga v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakrias Tigga Alias Zecharius Tigga v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhu Sahu Alias Sukhdeo Prasad Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jeetwahan Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ansar Ahmad Alias MD Ansar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Kumar Vs Union of India

Shweta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shakti Bauri And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand