Shrikant Pandey Vs Radho Pandey

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1402 of 2022

-----

Shrikant Pandey, S/o Radho Pandey Age – 47 years, R/o Quarter No. 1B/181, Subhash Nagar, P.O. – Amlo, P.S. – Bermo, District – Bokaro, Jharkhand … … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Radho Pandey, S/o Late Jaidev Pandey

¶6

Bhagmatli Devi W/o Radho Pandey, R/o Quarter No. 1B/182, Subhash Nagar, P.O. – Amlo, P.S. – Bermo, District – Bokaro, Jharkhand … … … Opp. Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Md. Imran Hassan, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate ------

¶11

Order No. 07 / Dated 10^th May, 2024

¶12

Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

¶13

2. The petitioner by filing the instant revision petition has prayed for setting aside the judgment dated 06.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principle Judge, Additional Family Court, Tenughat, in Original Maintenance Case No. 85 of 2020 whereby and whereunder, the learned Family Court has been pleased to allow the application filed by the opposite parties under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, per month to each opposite party as maintenance allowance from the date of institution of the case i.e. 15.07.2020.

¶14

3. As far as the factual matrix of the present case is concerned, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 being the father and mother respectively filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against their elder son i.e. petitioner for getting maintenance.

¶15

4. It is contended in the maintenance petition that O.P. No. 1 was working in CCL and on account of his ill health, he quit the job in the year 1994 and as per the Clause 9.4.3 of National Coal Wage Agreement, petitioner got the job and he had given in a writing to CCL that he shall take care of both the opposite parties as well as his minor brother, but after elapse of sometime, petitioner did not take care to maintain the opposite parties.

¶16

5. It is further case of opposite parties that as the petitioner was not taken care of them as such, they shifted to place of their younger son, who happens to be younger brother of petitioner, but his income is meager as such, he could not able to maintain opposite parties. It is also contended by opposite parties that the petitioner is having handsome salary of Rs. 1.2 lakhs.

¶17

6. It transpires that the petitioner filed a written statement and contended therein that it is the younger brother who prompted the opposite parties to file case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is also stated by the petitioner that the petitioner is having two daughters and one son and one daughter is pursuing her studies at Bangaluru whereas second daughter is studying at Ranchi and younger son is studying at D.A.V., Makauli. However, petitioner undertook to take care of his parents i.e. opposite parties, but at the same time it is contended by the petitioner that the younger son of opposite parties is also earning handsomely as such he should also contribute in the maintenance of their parents i.e. opposite parties.

¶18

7. The material on record suggests that initially the interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- each was granted by the learned Trial Court. It further transpires that the opposite parties who happen

¶19

to be the petitioners before the learned Trial Court has got examined three witnesses in support of their contention, whereas the petitioner/non-applicant has also got examined three witnesses in support of his contention.

¶20

8. After perusing the material available on record, it transpires that certain facts are admitted in the present case. As far as, employment of the petitioner in CCL is concerned, it is admitted position that on account of ill-health of opposite party No. 1, petitioner got employment in CCL as Crane Operator in Kargali, Bokaro, Jharkhand. It is further admitted fact that after all deduction including the interim maintenance, the petitioner is getting Rs. 55,000/- as a salary apart from bonus, etc. given by the CCL time to time.

¶21

9. Considering the material available on record, learned Trial Court vide order dated 06.10.2023 awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month as the maintenance to each of the opposite party and being aggrieved by the above said order of maintenance, the petitioner preferred the present revision petition before this Court.

¶22

10. During pendency of the present revision petition, this Court directed the petitioner and opposite parties to go to Mediation Centre, Bokaro for the purpose of mediation. The mediation report dated 26.08.2023 available on record reveals that matter has been settled between the petitioner and opposite parties.

¶23

11. The mediation agreement arrived at between the petitioner and opposite parties which is also annexed with the mediation report and after perusing the same, this Court finds that the petitioner and the opposite parties have agreed that the

¶24

petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month each to opposite party on the 10^th day of English calendar month from the salary account of the petitioner. Apart from above-said term and condition of settlement, the petitioner, opposite parties and also the younger brother of the petitioner have agreed for settlement of the immovable properties as contained in Paragraphs - 2 and 3 of the mediation agreement, dated 26.08.2023.

¶25

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties appeared before this Court and submitted that as the matter has been amicably settled between both the sides, as such necessary order shall be passed.

¶26

13. This Court is of considered view that in revision, Court has to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned order.

¶27

14 Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded to the fact that after settlement between the parties, petitioner does not want to assail the impugned order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principle Judge, Additional Family Court, Tenughat, in Original Maintenance Case No. 85 of 2020 on merit, as such, petitioner does not want to press present revision.

¶28

15. In view of above stated fact, the present revision petition stands dismissed, as not pressed.

¶29

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶30

Umesh-Abhishek/-

Shrikant Pandey v. Radho Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant Pandey v. Radho Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Sahnawaj Alias MD Shah Nawaj Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aditya Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhan Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhananjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand