Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1152 (JHR)

Bhimlal Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Awadhesh Pandey. learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Prasad. learned• counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. This criminal revision application has been directed against the judgment dated 24.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge VII, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the order dated 31.01.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Giridih in Misc. Case (Domestic Violence) No. 15 of 2013 by which the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs. 2,000/- per month for rent and Rs. 3,000/- as maintenance allowance as also Rs. l,000/- as litigation charge and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation under Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has been affirmed. 3. It has been submitted that several cases have been instituted against the petitioner by the opposite party No.2. He further submits that in a case instituted under Sections 498-A and 494 of, IPC, the petitioner has already been acquitted by the learned trial Court. He further submitted that pursuant to the application preferred by the opposite party No.2 under Section 125 of Cr PC, the petitioner is making payment of Rs.1,000/- per month. He further submits that the petitioner is a daily wager working in Gujarat and is not in a position to make payment of Rs. 5,000/- in a case instituted under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as he has also to pay Rs. 1,000/- as per the direction for the Court below under Section 125 of Cr PC. He further submits that an ex-parte order has been passed since the petitioner was never noticed about the initiation of a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 4. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has opposed the prayer and has stated that the notice was validly served upon the petitioner and on proper consideration of the torture meted out to the opposite party No.2, the learned Court below has passed the order granting maintenance to the opposite party as well an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards rent. 5. It appears from the perusal of the record that in the criminal case instituted by the opposite party No.2 being G.R. No. 240 of 2008, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Giridih on 16.10.2015. 2,000/- towards rent. 5. It appears from the perusal of the record that in the criminal case instituted by the opposite party No.2 being G.R. No. 240 of 2008, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Giridih on 16.10.2015. In the application preferred by the opposite party No.2 under Section 125 of Cr PC. the petitioner has been directed to make monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 1.000/-. The petitioner claims that without service of notice, the application preferred under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 2005 has been decided. However, from a perusal of the order, it appears that notice was served upon the mother of the petitioner who had refused to accept notice and the notice was pasted in the house of the petitioner which shows that service of notice was proper. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed much upon the quantum of maintenance awarded in favour of the opposite party No.2. 6. Perusal of the orders would reveal that an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month was awarded to the opposite party No. 2 in the alternative if the petitioner does not allow her to live in a portion of the house. As has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the opposite party No. 2 is staying in the house belonging to the petitioner and in such circumstances therefore, the petitioner is relieved from paying Rs. 2.000/- per. month as has been ordered by the learned Court below. The amount of maintenance is therefore restricted to an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month in terms of Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The amount which has been awarded even if considered in the, said backdrop of Rs. 3,000/- seems to be a meager amount considering the present day economic scenario. Even otherwise the learned Court below had found the opposite party No. 2 to have been subjected to domestic violence by the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in a case under Sections 498-A and 494 of IPC, the same cannot prevent passing of an order in view of the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In such circumstances, the learned Court below has passed the order in accordance with law which has subsequently been affirmed in appeal. 7. In such circumstances, the learned Court below has passed the order in accordance with law which has subsequently been affirmed in appeal. 7. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, this application fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Revision application dismissed.