Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 288 (JHR)

Md. Eltab Ansari, s/o Md. Sadique Ansari v. Afshana Bibi, w/o Md. Eltab Ansari

2021-03-12

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : The husband is aggrieved of the order of maintenance granted to his wife and two children in Maintenance Petition No. 101 of 2014. 2. In the order dated 05.08.2015 passed in the maintenance case, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj has held as under: "5. From perusal of record, it does appear to this court, that petitioner Afshana Bibi was married to O. P Md. Eltab Ansari as per Muslim Customs and that she is legally married wife of O. P and two minor children namely Md. Hasnain Ansari (son) and Nao Saba Bano (daughter) were born out of the said wedlock between the petitioner and OP Petitioner has fully supported her case and all the contents finds sufficient corroboration from the evidence of witnesses examined in this case. On the other hand, the OP not only failed to appear before this court but also refused to lend his stand to rebutt the contention of the petitioners. 6. It would be pertinent to point out that Section 125(1) Cr.P.C clearly provides that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain (a) his wife unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, a magistrate of the 1st class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, or such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child. The spirit of section 125 Cr.P.C is to prevent from vagrancy and destitution. Its object is to provide speedy remedy to deserted woman, children, infirm parents. The Law of Maintenance as discussed in Chapter IX Cr.PC. (sec. 125-128) gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long they are unable to maintain themselves. It enjoins upon the man to provide moral and social protection to his wife, children and infirm parents. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also gone to the extent of holding that a woman's right to maintenance is a personal and logical obligation so far as the husband is concerned and it is his duty to maintain her even if he has no property. 7. Therefore, evidently on the basis of record, case of petitioners appear to be reasonable. Petitioners do not have any means to sustain themselves and are evidently facing extreme financial crunch. 7. Therefore, evidently on the basis of record, case of petitioners appear to be reasonable. Petitioners do not have any means to sustain themselves and are evidently facing extreme financial crunch. The trauma and agony of the petitioners and their poor economic conditions have been fastened upon them due to irresponsible behaviour and negligent attitude of the OP It is, however, to be considered and noticed that petitioners have not furnished any documentary evidence regarding income proof of the OP Md. Ettabl Ansari from his engagement as L.P Truck driver or his agricultural income. However, the assertion of the OP having sufficient income does find enough corroboration from the evidence of the witnesses examined in this case. 8. Hence, I am of the considered view that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand) per month as maintenance in favour of petitioner no. 1 Afshana Bibi and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) per month each in favour of children, namely Md. Hasnain Ansari and Nao Saba Bano (co-petitioner no. 2 and 3) would be sufficient to fulfill her basic needs." 3. This revision petition was filed on 04.06.2016 and the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) vide order dated 01.08.2016 and the learned Registrar General vide order dated 05.09.2016 granted time to the petitioner for removing the defects, however, that was not done. 4. Thereafter the matter was listed on 15.05.2017 before the Court when two weeks' further time was granted to the petitioner to remove the defects as pointed out by the Registry, however, the Court's order was not complied and the criminal revision petition was dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 15.05.2017. 5. The petitioner filed Cr.M.P No. 1720 of 2017 for restoration of the criminal revision petition. It appears that the criminal miscellaneous petition was also filed with defects and on 25.07.2017 when the matter was listed before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) no one appeared for the petitioner. 6. On 07.09.2017, when the matter was listed before the learned Registrar General, one week's time was granted for removing the defects. 7. The matter was listed on 03.08.2018 before the Court and Cr.M.P No. 1720 of 2017 was allowed. 8. 6. On 07.09.2017, when the matter was listed before the learned Registrar General, one week's time was granted for removing the defects. 7. The matter was listed on 03.08.2018 before the Court and Cr.M.P No. 1720 of 2017 was allowed. 8. It further appears that on 04.12.2018 when the criminal revision petition was listed before the Court the husband volunteered to deposit 25% of the arrears of maintenance and, accordingly, he was directed to deposit rupees sixty thousand within a period of two weeks. Thereafter the petitioner did not take any step in the matter. This criminal revision petition was listed before me on 29.06.2020 when the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit stating whether he had deposited sum of rupees sixty thousand. 9. Today, Md. Imtiaz Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking two weeks' time for filing an affidavit as required by the Court vide order dated 29.06.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no instruction in the matter though he makes a statement that the petitioner intends to enter into an honourable settlement with his wife. 10. However, in view of the aforesaid proceedings noted hereinabove and failure of the petitioner to file affidavit whether he has deposited rupees sixty thousand as part of arrears of maintenance, a reasonable doubt arises on bonafide of the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant any adjournment in this matter and Criminal Revision No. 680 of 2016 is dismissed for non-compliance of the orders dated 04.12.2018 and 29.06.2020. 12. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned through FAX.