Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 607 (JHR)

Shobha Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2022-06-07

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to implement office order as contained in memo no. 2132 dated 28.12.2016 issued by the District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Koderma (the respondent no. 2) directing the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Middle School, Jainagar (the respondent no. 3) to deduct Rs.10,000/- per month from the salary of Surendra Nath Sahu (the respondent no. 4) and to deposit the same in petitioner’s bank account no. 453110510002120 (I.F.S.C. Code-BKID0004531), Bank of India, Manoharpur in compliance of order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Original Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 2012. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. 3. The Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, exercising power under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., vide order dated 29.06.2016 passed in Original Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 2012, has directed the respondent no. 4- Surendra Nath Sahu (husband of the petitioner) to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner out of which Rs.2,500/- per month has to be paid to Kanhaiya Gupta (minor son of the petitioner and the respondent no. 4) till he attains majority and after attaining his majority, the respondent no. 4 shall continue to pay entire amount of maintenance i.e. Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner. It has further been observed inter alia that if the respondent no. 4 fails to comply the said order, the petitioner will be at liberty to realize the said amount of maintenance from him through the process of law. The said order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa was challenged by the respondent no. 4 by preferring Criminal Revision No 948 of 2016 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2020. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the respondent no. 2, vide memo no. 2132 dated 28.12.2016, in compliance of order passed in Original Misc. Case No. 24 of 2012, directed the respondent no. 3 to deduct Rs.10,000/- per month from the salary of the respondent no. 4 and to deposit the same in the bank account of the petitioner, the maintenance amount is not being paid to the petitioner. 5. Mr. 2132 dated 28.12.2016, in compliance of order passed in Original Misc. Case No. 24 of 2012, directed the respondent no. 3 to deduct Rs.10,000/- per month from the salary of the respondent no. 4 and to deposit the same in the bank account of the petitioner, the maintenance amount is not being paid to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned A.C. to S.C.-I appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, submits that sub-section 3 of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. deals with the situation where the order passed under the said Section is not complied. 6. Even if the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court without taking recourse of law, is misconceived. Hence, I see no reason to entertain the present writ petition. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take recourse as available under law particularly keeping in view the observation of the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa made in the order dated 29.06.2016 in Original Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 2012. 7. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with aforesaid liberty.