Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1610 (JHR)

Sikandar Ansari v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-09-13

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2019
JUDGMENT Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 08.04.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No.22 of 2013 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.2,500/- to the applicant from the date of filing of the case. 2. Mr. Gaurav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that after a compromise was affected between the parties, a Panchat prepared and the criminal case instituted by O.P No.2 vide P.C.R Case No.186 of 2007 was dismissed, the applicant has filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C which is not maintainable in view of sub-section 4 of section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. In a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C, the applicant, O.P No.2 herein, has produced 4 witnesses, however, inspite of five adjournments the petitioner did not lead any evidence in support of the stand taken by him. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that there was a settlement between the parties in Maintenance Case No.48 of 2010 which was finally disposed of in the Lok Adalat and an Award was prepared and in P.C.R Case No.186 of 2007, the applicant has admitted that there was a settlement between the parties and, in fact, she was not tortured by her husband or her family members. 5. The judgment in Maintenance Case No.22 of 2013 records that xerox copy of order-sheet and Award made in the Lok Adalat in Maintenance Case No.48 of 2010 were produced, but the O.P did not adduce any evidence. In the present proceeding also no document has been produced by the petitioner reflecting payment of the amount under the settlement which was required to be paid to O.P No.2. The judgment in P.C.R Case No.186 of 2007 also does not reflect that any amount was paid by the petitioner to the applicant. Besides the above, from the materials produced by O.P No.2 in Maintenance Case No.22 of 2013 through her witnesses, I find that O.P No.2 had a reasonable and just excuse not to live in the company of the petitioner. On the basis of the materials laid before him, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj has awarded Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance to O.P No.2. 6. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the judgment dated 08.04.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No.22 of 2013, Criminal Revision No.1131 of 2015 is dismissed. 7. On the basis of the materials laid before him, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj has awarded Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance to O.P No.2. 6. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the judgment dated 08.04.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No.22 of 2013, Criminal Revision No.1131 of 2015 is dismissed. 7. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through ''Fax''.