Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 683 (JHR)

Tulsi Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-03-08

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner-husband is aggrieved of the order dated 15.01.2015 passed in Crl. Misc. (Maintenance) Case No.19 of 2009 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to the minor child. 2. Two-fold contentions have been raised by Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner; (i) once the mandate under section 9 of the Family Courts Act is not followed the order granting maintenance is rendered illegal and, (ii) if the relationship between the parties as husband-wife is not proved maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C cannot be granted. 3. On an application under section 125 Cr.P.C filed by Fulkumari Devi and her minor son, Pradumana Singh, Crl. Misc. (Maintenance) Case No.19 of 2009 was registered against the petitioner, who was the opposite-party. The applicant no.1- Fulkumari Devi has claimed herself wife of the opposite party- Tulsi Singh. She further claimed that the applicant no.2- Pradumana Singh is the child born out of her wedlock with the opposite-party. During the trial, on behalf of the applicants 4 witnesses were examined and the opposite-party has also examined 3 witnesses. The applicants have brought on record copies of the case filed under section 498A IPC and the statement of Ramu Tiwari who was a witness in PCR Case No.294 of 1998 to establish that applicant no.1 is wife of opposite party- Tulsi Singh and she had just excuse for not staying in the company of her husband, in the matrimonial home. 4. Section 89 CPC refers to settlement of disputes outside the Court. The Court after formulating the terms of a possible settlement refers the same for; (i) arbitration, (ii) conciliation, (iii) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat, or (iv) mediation and under section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 there is a mandate that before proceeding in the matter on merits the family court Judge shall take steps for settlement of dispute between the parties. However, if the matter has gone for trial and after full-fledged trial an order has been passed on merits, that cannot be challenged on the ground of non-observance of section 9 of the Family Courts Act. However, if the matter has gone for trial and after full-fledged trial an order has been passed on merits, that cannot be challenged on the ground of non-observance of section 9 of the Family Courts Act. On the question of marriage between the parties, suffice it would be to indicate that the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C is summary in nature and it is not necessary to record a conclusive finding on relationship of the parties. The trial Judge has relied on the evidence of Ramu Tiwari who was a witness in PCR Case No.294 of 1998 and finding a semblance of husband-wife relationship between the parties has granted maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and the limitations of the revisional jurisdiction [refer " Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar & Ors." reported in (1987) 1 SCC 288 ], I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and, accordingly, Cr. Rev. No.231 of 2015 is dismissed. The petitioner shall comply with the order dated 15.01.2015, if already not complied.