Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1027 (JHR)

Basudev Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2010-11-24

D.K.SINHA

body2010
Order None appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The instant revision petition has been preferred under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 with a prayer for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.3.2008 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in M.P. Case No.53/2002 (A) by which a total sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month being the maintenance was awarded to the opposite party nos. 2,3 & 4 from the month of April, 2008 with arrears accruing from 13.12.2002 to March, 2008. 3. After the parties appeared in the instant criminal revision, the matter was referred to for conciliation by the order dated 3.8.2010 by which the Conciliator, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority was directed to conclude the conciliation proceeding within a period of three months from the date of first appearance of the parties and to submit report and in the meantime, the petitioner was directed to pay the current monthly maintenance regularly to his wife, son and daughter viz. O.P. Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 4. The Conciliator, after conciliation between the parties submitted report which is reproduced:- "That from the Conciliation sittings conducted on 7.9.10, it has been found that the petitioner husband Basudev Mahato is not inclined to keep his wife O.P. 2 Tupli Devi with him, whereas O.P. 2 has shown her readiness to live with her husband Basudev Mahato alongwith her children. The petitioner was rigid on his stand and was not ready to restore his matrimonial tie. The adjournment during conciliation have been given at the instance of the learned counsel of the parties to think into the matter seriously and to find out the alternative remedy. But the petitioner did not change his stand and since last two dates of the conciliation, he absented in the conciliation proceedings. The O.P. 2 wife also absented on that date due to which the conciliation proceedings could not be concluded. That due to the conduct of the parties and also the rigidness on the part of the petitioner, the possibility of their reunion could not be achieved and final settlement too could not be arrived due to the absence of the parties. Under the circumstances, stated above the conciliation has failed." 5. The main thrust in the revision petition is that the petitioner being employee of C.C.L., his earning was only Rs. Under the circumstances, stated above the conciliation has failed." 5. The main thrust in the revision petition is that the petitioner being employee of C.C.L., his earning was only Rs. 4,500/- per month with his parents and two brothers dependent upon him. That apart, he was paying Rs. 461/- per month towards LIC premium and he expressed readiness and willingness to maintain his children and wife by keeping them with him, but on the instigation of her father, opposite party no. 2 was not ready to live with him at her matrimonial home, as such, she was not entitled to maintenance. It was further contended in the petition that the opposite party no. 3 Vijay Kumar Mahto became major much before the order passed in M.P. Case No. 53/2002(A) as his date of birth recorded in the school was 10.10.1989, hence he was not entitled for any maintenance. 6. In reply to that, in joint counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2, 3 & 4, it was explained that petitioner had obtained and produced fake school certificate containing false date of birth of opposite party no. 3 as the age of opposite party no. 3 on the date of drafting of counter affidavit was only 18 years and it was specifically stated in para-6 of the counter affidavit that opposite party (wife) was driven out from her matrimonial home while her son was only 10 years and daughter was only 8 years old on 20.2.2001. It is further contended that the salary document of the petitioner (husband) was filed by the members of the opposite party in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which established beyond doubt that his gross salary was Rs. 16,609/- per month and only on consideration of the monthly earning of petitioner (husband) maintenance amount was determined by the Family Court, Bokaro. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the pleadings, order impugned and the reports 5ubmitted by the Conciliator, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority dated 19.11.2010, I find that a sum of Rs. 1,500/per month was awarded to the wife, Rs.1,000/- per month was awarded to the opposite party no. 3-Vijay Kumar Mahato and again a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month was awarded to the opposite party no. 1,500/per month was awarded to the wife, Rs.1,000/- per month was awarded to the opposite party no. 3-Vijay Kumar Mahato and again a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month was awarded to the opposite party no. 4Sunita Kumari to be paid by the petitioner from the date of initiation of the proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure till the attainment of their majority or till the date of her (daughter) marriage whichever could be earlier with the further direction that the petitioner would pay the entire amount of maintenance to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 herein from the month of April, 2008 and the maintenance amount would be paid by 15th day of each month. The arrear amount of maintenance from 13.12.2002 to March, 2008 was also directed to be deposited by the petitioner in ten equal installments. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 submits that no amount was given to the members of the opposite party towards the arrears of maintenance though the admittedly petitioner has been paying the current maintenance regularly. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order impugned rather, it could be evident from the report of the Conciliator that the petitioner (husband) had shown his disinclination to keep his wife-opposite party no. 2 with him. I find that petitioner had stated that. his monthly income after all deduction was Rs. 4,500/- per month but he did not controvert the contentions of the opposite party that his gross income was As. 16,609/- as the C.C.L. employee and the same has been substantially enhanced, the counsel for the O.Ps. added. The petitioner failed to convince this Court that the maintenance amount was excessive so as to call for interference in the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court. The revision is devoid of merit hence it is dismissed.