Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 878 (JHR)

Debasish Chandra v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-28

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
ORDER : The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Miscellaneous Case no. 88 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the present opposite party no.2 for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’), has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- as maintenance to the minor son till he attained majority and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost. 2. On an application filed by the opposite party no.2 along with her minor son under Section 125 of the Code, the aforesaid miscellaneous case was instituted on the facts that the opposite party no.2 is legally married wife of the petitioner and the marriage was solemnized on 09.12.1993 according to the Hindu Rights and Custom and dowry in different forms was given to the petitioner and she came to her matrimonial home but during her stay at her matrimonial home, the family members of the petitioner started demanding Rs.50,000/-, one gold chain and other items knowingful well that the father of opposite party no.2 died before her marriage and brother was looking after her. It is alleged that even after a son born to her, neither the petitioner nor his family members amended themselves and opposite party no.2 was regularly tortured. On 28.01.2002, the petitioner and other family members assaulted the opposite party no.2 due to non-fulfillment of their demands of dowry and she was ousted along with her newly born son. It is alleged that since after her ouster, she has been staying with her brother and the petitioner even after her request, neglected her intentionally and refused to maintain the opposite part no.2 and her son. 3. It appears from the record that after appearance in the court below, the petitioner filed his show-cause admitting the fact that the opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife and the son born out of their wedlock but denied the allegation of demand of dowry and torture rather the petitioner stated in the show-cause that the opposite party no.2 is living in adultery with one Suresh Verma. Hence she is not entitled to any maintenance and a matrimonial suit bearing no. Hence she is not entitled to any maintenance and a matrimonial suit bearing no. 10 of 2002 was also filed at the instance of the petitioner in the court of District Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and besides that one complaint was also filed against the opposite party no.2. Lastly, the case of the petitioner was that he has got no independent source of income rather he is looking after the business of his parents and he is dependent on them. It further appears that both the parties adduced their oral as well as documentary evidences whereafter the court below upon scrutinizing and appreciating the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties held that the opposite party no.2 along with her minor son are living separately and they are entitled to maintenance. Accordingly, the court below granted the maintenance as indicated above. 4. Assailing the order impugned as bad in law and perverse, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below without appreciating the evidence in right perspective granted the maintenance, which is not sustainable as the petitioner has no separate income. It was also submitted that the finding of the court below regarding adultery is also not sustainable in law as it is based on wrong appreciation of the fact and evidences. 5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submitted that the court below has rightly appreciated the evidence on the income of the petitioner and in fact the onus was upon the petitioner to show his monthly income from all sources but he failed to bring on record any relevant documents and the Ext.-A, adduced on behalf of the petitioner, is not reliable. Learned counsel further submitted that the scope of the interference by a revisional court is very limited and this Court sitting in revision cannot re-appreciate the evidences unless there is material irregularity or jurisdictional error. 6. In the case under consideration herein, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage and that one son was born out of their wedlock and even the petitioner has not denied that the opposite party no.2 alongwith her son are not living separately. It has been laid down in catena of decisions including the case of Suresh Mondal Vs. In the case under consideration herein, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage and that one son was born out of their wedlock and even the petitioner has not denied that the opposite party no.2 alongwith her son are not living separately. It has been laid down in catena of decisions including the case of Suresh Mondal Vs. State of Jharkhand; (2006) 1 AIR JHR 153 that in a case where the court has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and she is entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the revisional court is very limited. In the case of Santosh (Smt.) Vs. Naresh Pal (1998) 8 SCC 447 , as also in the case of Parwati Ran Sahu Vs. Bishnu Sahu (2002) 10 SCC 510 the ratio decidendi which emerges out of the two above decisions on the power of revisional court is that it is not open to the High Court in revision to re-examine the evidence for the purpose of arriving at a different conclusion and should not interfere and disturb the finding. 7. Obviously, this Court sitting in revision cannot enter into and re-appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties but after going through the evidences available on record, I find that the court below has rightly appreciated the evidences. The petitioner has though testified in the court below that opposite party no.2 was running a beauty parlor and earning a handsome amount every month but no documentary evidence has been brought on record to show that she was the owner of any beauty parlor. Besides that there is absolutely nothing to show that the opposite party no.2 has any independent income. The court below by framing a separate issue regarding the income of the parties has discussed the evidence in detail and I find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Hence, I am constrained to hold that the petitioner has got sufficient means to maintain the opposite party no.2 and her minor son. 8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I do not find any illegality or any jurisdictional error in the order impugned and the court below after appreciating the evidences adduced by both the parties has rightly granted the maintenance. 8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I do not find any illegality or any jurisdictional error in the order impugned and the court below after appreciating the evidences adduced by both the parties has rightly granted the maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any plausible ground to interfere with the order impugned. 9. The revision application, being devoid of any merit is, thus, dismissed. Revision dismissed.