Dismissed

Chandrakant Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC27 Aug 2024Cr.Rev./851/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against a Family Court order awarding Rs. 5,000 monthly maintenance to the wife and Rs. 1,000 to the minor son under Section 125 CrPC. The High Court held the restitution decree did not bar maintenance given pending cross-cases, and no Rajnesh affidavit was required when the order predated it; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; impugned maintenance order affirmed by dismissal of the revision.

Chandrakant Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 851 of 2020

¶2

Chandrakant Mehta aged about 28 years son of Virendra Nath Mehta resident of village-Meral Purwara Tola P.O., P.S.- Meral Dist.Garhwa (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Puja Devi W/o Chandrakant Mehta D/o Shivlal Mehta

¶6

Vaibhav Raj s/o Chandrakant Mehta,

¶7

Both resident of village- Meral Purwara Tola P.O., P.S.-Meral Dist.-Garhwa, (Jharkhand) present D/O Shivlal Mehta residing at VillPathan Toli Mohalla, Garhwa P.O. P.S.-Garhwa Dist.- Garhwa

¶8

… Opp. Parties ---

¶9

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Chanchal Chhaya, Advocate ---

¶11

18 /27.08.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

2. This revision is directed against the order dated 18.09.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa under Section 125 Cr. P.C. in Original Maintenance Case No. 30 of 2018 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance to the opposite party No. 2 wife @ Rs. 5,000/- per month and to the opposite party No. 3, the minor son @ Rs. 1,000 per month from the date of application.

¶13

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage is not in dispute between the parties, rather the marriage was a love marriage which ultimately took the shape of an arranged marriage and therefore there was no question of demand of any dowry. The learned counsel submits that the opposite party No. 2 had filed a false case under Section 498-A of IPC and in fact she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home. He has also submitted that the petitioner had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed vide decree dated 09.03.2017. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is still ready to keep the wife and the child. He has submitted that a petition seeking divorce has been filed by the

¶14

petitioner which is pending. The learned counsel has further submitted that he is ready to keep his wife and the son and he has instruction from the petitioner who is ready to pay Rs. 5 lacs and transfer 10 decimals of land in favour of opposite party No. 3, the son.

¶15

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the matter was sent for mediation and ultimately the mediation has failed. A failure report of the mediation has been received by this Court. He has further submitted that the opposite parties do not have any source of income and a meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/- for the wife and Rs. 1,000/- for the minor son has been fixed. He has submitted that after the final form was submitted by the police in the criminal case, a protest petition was filed in which cognizance has been taken and thus the criminal case for alleged offence under Section 498-A IPC is pending against the petitioner. He has further submitted that there are case and counter case between the parties, both, civil and criminal nature. The learned counsel has further submitted that the impugned order has rightly been passed and the same does not call for any interference.

¶16

5. This court finds that on behalf of the wife she had examined herself and her father and on behalf of the petitioner (husband) altogether three witnesses were examined including himself and his father and one person. Number of documents were also exhibited. The learned court has scrutinized the materials on record and has also recorded that the during the trial of the maintenance case, two cases were filed, one by the husband and one by the wife against each other. The court also recorded that a divorce case is also pending which was filed at the instance of the husband. The learned court after considering the entire evidence on record has ultimately awarded Rs. 5,000/- to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- to his son.

¶17

6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner has not filed any petition for guardianship so far as the son is concerned.

¶18

7. Upon perusal of the records, this court finds that the marriage between the parties is not in dispute which had taken place way back

¶19

¶20

in the year 2013 and a child was also born out of wedlock. This court finds that the opposite party No. 2 had filed her application on 22.02.2018 seeking maintenance by asserting that there was a demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the side of the petitioner immediately after she went to her matrimonial house and when her father expressed inability to meet the said demand, she was assaulted and was thrown out of matrimonial home. There was several panchayati held and on 21.03.2016 the petitioner took his wife and son with him but his behaviour did not change. Ultimately, the wife was assaulted by holding her hair and also assaulted on her belly by the family members of the petitioner and the wife had registered a criminal case being G.R. Case No. 1231 of 2016 in which final form was submitted and a complaint case was instituted subsequently bearing No. 1840 of 2016 which was pending for evidence. It further appears that one case was filed by the petitioner seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was numbered as Matrimonial Case No. 29 of 2016 which was allowed vide judgement dated on 20.02.2017 (decreed on 09.03.2017) by observing that the police had conducted investigation and final form was submitted. It further appears that another criminal case has been instituted by the wife being Criminal petition No. 30 of 2017 on 08.03.2017 i.e. after the passing of the judgement in Matrimonial Case No. 29 of 2016 and the father of the petitioner had also filed a case bearing G.R. Case No. 1398 of 2017. It appears that there are cases both criminal and civil nature between both the parties filed by both the parties against each other and in such circumstances, the wife has good reasons not to live with the petitioner. This court is of the considered view that merely because the petitioner has a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in his favour vide judgement passed on 20.02.2017 the same cannot be the reason for refusal of maintenance to the wife on account of further criminal cases filed/pending at the instance of the wife against the petitioner. This court finds that the learned court has taken into consideration the judgement passed in the matter of restitution of conjugal rights and the other pending / new case filed by the wife

¶21

¶22

while allowing the petition for maintenance which was filed on 22.02.2018.

¶23

8. At this stage of dictation of the order, the learned counsel has submitted that no affidavit in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha (Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020) was filed. This court finds that in the show cause the petitioner has taken a stand that he is dependent on agriculture and has not disputed that the wife has no source of livelihood. Thus, it is not in dispute that the wife and son do not have any source of income and the petitioner has at least source of income/livelihood from agriculture. This court is of the considered view that only a meagre amount of maintenance has been fixed for the wife and the child who is school going as per the records. In such circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in revisional jurisdiction merely on account of non-filing of affidavit of assets and liabilities in terms of judgment passed in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha (Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020) which was decided on 04.11.2020 and the impugned order is dated 18.09.2020. In such circumstances, there was no mandate to file affidavit in terms of judgement passed in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha (supra ) on the date when the impugned judgement was passed.

¶24

9. This Court finds that the learned court has passed a wellreasoned order and even after passing of the order of restitution of conjugal rights, there have been criminal case filed by both the parties against each other. In such circumstances, the learned court has rightly passed the order of maintenance and this court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.

¶25

10. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶26

11. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.

¶27

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶28

Binit

¶29

Chandrakant Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Mehta 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

Alok Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Departmnet of Industries

Binod Kumar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narendra Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

Raju Yadav Alias Sikander Yadav Alias Sikandar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Mishra Alias Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Kaishar Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.