Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1192 (JHR)

Goutam Kalwar v. State of Jhrkhand

2015-09-29

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2015
ORDER : This revision is directed against the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj in Cr. Misc. Case no. 73/2006 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- to O.P./wife and Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the minor daughter from the date of filing of the application i.e. 12.12.2006. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, has submitted that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that no document was produced by the O.P./wife regarding the income of the petitioner and the trial court has assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.25,000/- p.m. on surmises and conjecture. That the trial court has wrongly relied upon Exts.11 and 12 which are the sale deeds in the name of the petitioner and this does not in any way establish that the petitioner has sufficient means of income. That as per the sale deed the consideration amount is Rs.20,000/- and this property was sold by the petitioner for the treatment of his ailing mother who is being treated at Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore. That the petitioner is still ready and willing to keep the O.P. with full dignity and honour. That the allegation that petitioner has solemnised a second marriage is not substantiated by any evidence on record. That the O.P. is able to maintain herself as she has landed property at her paternal home and she had left the company of the petitioner without any sufficient cause or reason. Hence, she is not entitled to the maintenance and the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P./wife argued that the trial court has analysed and discussed the evidence of the witnesses and the documents and rightly held that the petitioner has sufficient means of income. That there is evidence on record that petitioner has solemnised a second marriage with a lady named Bhagwati Rai for which a case under Section 494 and 109 IPC was instituted. That petitioner's witness, namely Banshidhar Yadav (O.P.W.4) has stated in his cross-examination that he had heard that the petitioner had solemnised a second marriage. That the O.P. was forced to leave the matrimonial house as she could not fulfill the petitioner's demand for dowry and she had also lodged a case under Section 498A IPC. That petitioner's witness, namely Banshidhar Yadav (O.P.W.4) has stated in his cross-examination that he had heard that the petitioner had solemnised a second marriage. That the O.P. was forced to leave the matrimonial house as she could not fulfill the petitioner's demand for dowry and she had also lodged a case under Section 498A IPC. Thus, the O.P. has sufficient cause and reason to reside separately and that the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court. 4. Heard. On going through the impugned order it is evident that the trial court has discussed the evidence of both the parties in threadbare details. On behalf of O.P. four witnesses have been examined and on behalf of petitioner also four witnesses have been examined. From Ext.20, the certified copies of Information Petition dated 01.09.2010 and 20.01.2011 of the court of S.D.O, Rajmahal, it has been found that the petitioner has solemnised a second marriage with another girl during the subsistence of the marriage with O.P. It is evident that O.P.W4, Banshidhar Yadav, a witness of the petitioner examined in the court below has admitted that he had heard that petitioner had solemnised a second marriage and the petitioner has admitted that a case under Sections 494 and 109 IPC has been instituted against him. Thus, these facts establish that the petitioner has solemnised a second marriage and this gives sufficient cause to the O.P. to reside separately. The trial court has discussed the documentary evidence, Exts.11 and 12, the sale deeds, whereby the petitioner had purchased the properties for a consideration amount of Rs.20,000/- each and the claim of the petitioner that he does not have any source of income stands falsified. 5. Thus, in view of the evidence on record it is established that the petitioner has sufficient means of income and the witnesses have also stated that he has landed property and business of brick kiln. Admittedly, the O.P. has been residing separately with her minor daughter since 2003 and the petitioner has never cared to visit or enquire about their well being. Admittedly, the O.P. has been residing separately with her minor daughter since 2003 and the petitioner has never cared to visit or enquire about their well being. It is well settled that the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated as a measure of social justice ensuring that a dependent wife or child is not forced to live a life of starvation or beggary rather she is entitled to the comforts which she would have enjoyed while residing with her husband. The O.P. is dependent on her parents and is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, grant of maintenance of Rs.4000/- and Rs.3000/- p.m. respectively to O.P./wife and the minor daughter is reasonable and justified. Accordingly, the impugned order does not merit any interference by this Court. The petitioner is directed to pay the arrear amount of maintenance and the ordered maintenance within three months from the date of this order. 6. In the result, this revision is hereby dismissed.