Yogesh Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 524 of 2022

Yogesh Kumar Das @ Yogesh Kumar aged about – 31 years son of Vimal Prasad Gupta, resident of village – Sahibganj Belhar Road, P.O. – Mathura, P.S. – Belhar, District – Banka (Bihar)

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

Dolly Devi, aged about 22 years, wife of Yogesh Kumar Das, D/o Sunil Kumar Das, resident of presently resided at Chowkbazar, Sahibganj, P.O. – Sahibganj, P.S. – Sahibganj, District – Sahibganj (Jharkhand) … … Opposite Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate

¶10

11 /01.03.2024 This criminal revision has been filed for the following relief:

¶11

“That the instant application is directed against judgment dated 10.03.2022 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.60 of 2020 by Sri Shree Prakash Dubey Principal Judge Family Court, Sahibganj whereby he has been pleased direct the petitioner to pay a some of Rupees five thousand per month to wife/ o.p No.2 and Rupees two thousand per month to the son of o.p. No.-1 as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the case and also directed to pay the arrear amount within six month from today without considering the material on record.”

¶12

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court has submitted that, as recorded in the impugned order in paragraph 3, the petitioner was debarred from filing the show cause vide order dated 04.12.2021. The learned counsel submits that under such circumstances he could not bring on record the order passed in the case of restitution of conjugal rights dated 20.02.2020 though the same was decreed ex parte .

¶13

3. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that no steps were taken by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 04.12.2021, by which the petitioner was debarred. The petitioner neither filed any petition for recall of the order dated 04.12.2021 nor challenged the same before any higher court.

¶14

2

¶15

4. The learned counsel has also submitted that there are numerous cases pending between the parties, including one criminal case filed by the opposite party No. 2 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He has also submitted that the petitioner does not have any source of livelihood and, therefore, the impugned order calls by interference.

¶16

5. Learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party while opposing the prayer has submitted that the marriage is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that a child was born out of the wedlock.

¶17

6. He submitted that the amount of compensation which has been awarded to the opposite party is a meagre amount of Rs.5000/- for wife and Rs.2000/- for the child. The fact that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner for alleged offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code is also not in dispute.

¶18

7. The learned counsel has also submitted that though the petitioner was debarred from filing the show cause, but at the same time, the witnesses produced by the opposite party no. 2 who had testified that the petitioner runs a furniture shop and earns Rs.50,000 to 60,000 per month were duly cross-examined by the petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the same was also rightly considered as the opposite party no. 2 did not bring any documentary evidence with regard to the income of the present petitioner.

¶19

8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the impugned order reflects that in spite of service of notice, the petitioner did not file his show cause and ultimately, he was debarred from filing the show cause vide order dated 04.12.2021. It further reveals that the said order was never challenged by the petitioner before any court of law. The petitioner had participated in the proceedings inasmuch as the witnesses produced by the wife before the learned court, were also cross-examined by the petitioner. It further appears that the wife had claimed that the petitioner had income of Rs.50,000 to Rs.60,000 per month through his furniture shop, but the learned court has taken into consideration that no documentary evidence with regard to the income of the present

¶20

3

¶21

petitioner was filed by the wife and the learned court has considered the status and the living standard of the present petitioner and has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000 per month to the wife and Rs.2,000 per month for the purposes of maintenance of the son although the maintenance was claimed at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 5000/- per month for the minor child. The maintenance has been awarded after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order.

¶22

9. This Court finds that the learned court framed the relevant issues, including the issue as to whether the wife had sufficient reasons to live separately and decided the same in favour of the wife on the basis of materials on record. The fact that the wife has also filed a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not being disputed by the petitioner before this Court. Rather, the petitioner himself has admitted that there are multiple cases going on between the parties. This Court after going through the impugned order does not find any illegality or perversity calling for any interference. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.

¶23

10. The law is well settled that in case of any changed circumstances, the parties have appropriate remedy under the provisions of section 127 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

11. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.

¶25

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶26

Saurav

Yogesh Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Besra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pinku Bhuiya Alias Pinku Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhurb Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranju Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Munna Sao Alias Munneshwar Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kaustubh Infra Space through Its Authorized Representative Cum Partner Ajay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand