Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 825 (JHR)

Ranjeet Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2010-08-20

JAYA ROY

body2010
Order The petitioner has filed this revision application against the order dated 31.3.2010 passed in maintenance case no. 141 of 2006 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh, whereby he has directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month towards current maintenance allowance to opposite party no. 2, namely, Sumitra Devi and also directed to pay further sum of Rs. 2,000/towards the arrears of maintenance allowance, total being 4,000/- per month, till the entire payment of arrears maintenance. 2. The applicant-opposite party no. 2 had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, Ranjit Ram for payment of Rs. 12,500/- towards her monthly maintenance allowance. Her case, in brief, is that she had been married with the petitioner on 16.5.1993 according to Hindu rites. Thereafter, she started living with the petitioner as wife and husband at her matrimonial home. It is alleged that sometime after the marriage, the petitioner and his family members started torturing opposite party no.2 for dowry. They told her that they would not keep her in their house and ultimately she was dragged from the matrimonial house on 21.12.1998 and since then she is living with her parents. In January, 1999, the petitioner is alleged to have married another lady Ranju Devi of Village-Rajpur and they are living as husband and wife at the petitioner's house. It is further stated that the petitioner is a Government servant employed in Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna and is getting more than Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is also stated that he has a business from which he is also earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On 27.4.2000, an agreement was executed between the parties, and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner agreed to pay half of his remuneration to opposite party no., 2, as he was then temporary staff getting only Rs. 4,500/- per month. He paid Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant-opposite party no. 2 for her livelihood from October, 2002 to August, 2004. Thereafter, he stopped payment of any amount. As the parents of the petitioner are very poor and are not in a position to maintain her for a long time having no means, opposite party no. 2 asked the petitioner to provide her some money in December, 2006, but the petitioner did not provide any money for her maintenance. Thereafter, he stopped payment of any amount. As the parents of the petitioner are very poor and are not in a position to maintain her for a long time having no means, opposite party no. 2 asked the petitioner to provide her some money in December, 2006, but the petitioner did not provide any money for her maintenance. This is why she filed the instant case claiming maintenance from him. 3. The petitioner appeared and filed show-cause on 15.3.2007 denying all the allegations. He denied his marriage with the opposite party no. 2. It is stated in the show-cause that opposite party no. 2 is in the habit of implicating persons on false allegations for the purpose of blackmailing them. It is stated that she had earlier married once with Surendra Ram whom she left after some years. It is stated that opposite party no. 2 lodged a criminal case against the petitioner and his family members under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The manner of alleged occurrence given in the said case is quite different from the allegations made by her in her petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. On behalf of opposite party no.2, seven witnesses have been examined including herself. The petitioner examined three witnesses including himself. A number of documents were filed and exhibited by both the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has denied his marriage with opposite party no.2 and she could not prove her marriage with the petitioner. Therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further contended that though the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and the criminal appeal filed by him has also been dismissed but he has preferred a criminal revision before this court which is pending for final adjudication in which the petitioner has been released on bail. He has further argued that one Nageshar Pandit who performed the marriage, according to opposite party no. 2, has not been examined by opposite party no. 2, as according to her, he died 20 years ago. As according to opposite party no. 2, the marriage was performed on 16.5.1993 and said Nageshar Pandit died 20 years ago, it itself casts a great doubt about the marriage of opposite party no. 2 with the petitioner in 1993. 6. 2, has not been examined by opposite party no. 2, as according to her, he died 20 years ago. As according to opposite party no. 2, the marriage was performed on 16.5.1993 and said Nageshar Pandit died 20 years ago, it itself casts a great doubt about the marriage of opposite party no. 2 with the petitioner in 1993. 6. In the impugned order, it has come that the O.P. No.2 has examined Rameshwar Thakur (Napit) who has performed some of the customs in the marriage. He has stated about the marriage solemnized by the parties. Furthermore, other witnesses, i.e. A.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have also proved the factum of marriage between the parties. It has also come in the impugned order that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 498A I.P.C. and sentenced for 6 months imprisonment which has been confirmed by the appellate court. A.W.7 has also said about the execution of Ekrarnama Ext.-1 about which the witnesses have said that this agreement was executed and signed by opposite party no. 2 and the present petitioner also. When the petitioner was in custody, this fact of marriage between the parties was also admitted for grant of bail. In the impugned order, it has come that Ext.-6 (order dated 23.8.2004) shows that the petitioner has admitted that opposite party no. 2 is his wife and he had filed undertaking in the court on the basis of which he was allowed to accompany opposite party, Sumitra Devi. It further appears from the impugned order that the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has not denied the factum of marriage with opposite party no. 2. In this background, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the court below that the opposite party no. 2 is the legally married wife of the present petitioner. 7. Now coming to the question of the factum of maintenance, it is to be determined as to what amount would be adequate for maintenance of O.P. NO.2. No documentary evidence has been• produced before the court below regarding the earning of the petitioner by either of the parties. According to O.P. No.2, the petitioner is a Government servant employed in Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna, where he is getting Rs 15,000/- per month. He is also earning some amount from his business. No documentary evidence has been• produced before the court below regarding the earning of the petitioner by either of the parties. According to O.P. No.2, the petitioner is a Government servant employed in Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna, where he is getting Rs 15,000/- per month. He is also earning some amount from his business. The petitioner has not denied in his show-cause that he is a Government servant as stated by opposite party no. 2 in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The witnesses examined by opposite party no. 2 have also very specifically stated that the petitioner is doing Government job and earns Rs. 15,000/- per month. 8. After perusing the order impugned in which the trial court has elaborately discussed the evidence with regard to earning of the petitioner and considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, I do not find that the amount of maintenance so granted by the trial court which is only Rs. 2,000/- per month, is at all unreasonable or excessive. In my opinion the amount of maintenance granted by the trial court is wholly justified. Accordingly, this revision application having no merit, is dismissed.