Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1489 (JHR)

Chanchala Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2023-12-19

SUBHASH CHAND

body2023
JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND The instant Cr. Revision has been preferred against the order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ramgarh in Original Maintenance Case No.05 of 2019 whereby the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The brief facts leading to this Cr. Revision are that on behalf of petitioner-Chanchala Pandey (wife of Rajesh Kumar Pandey), Riyanshu Pandey and Ridhanshu Pandey (sons of Rajesh Kumar Pandey) the maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was moved before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ramgarh with these averments that the petitioner- Chanchala Pandey was married with Rajesh Kumar Pandey-Opp. Party No.2 according to Hindu rites and rituals on 19.04.2000 and out of the said wedlock, two sons were born, who are Riyanshu Pandey, 17 years old and Ridhanshu Pandey, 15 years old now. After few years of marriage, the petitioner was physically and mentally tortured. O.P. No.2 Rajesh Kumar Pandey is in C.C.L. Rajrappa Washery as a Dumber Operator. The Opposite Party No.2 began to eat non-veg and consume liquor and the major part of his salary was expended by him in all his luxuries. He has neither handed over his salary to the petitioner-Chanchala Pandey. Whenever she demanded, 100 rupee or 200 rupee was given by Opposite Party No.2. On account of his bad habits the Opposite Party No.2 has become extravagant. In the year 2017 the demand of dowry was made. The petitioner filed a case being Mahila Police Station Case No.30 of 2018 which was registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read Section 34 of I.P.C. the same is pending now. The Opposite Party No.2 has also taken the loan from HDFC Bank against the pledge of jewellery in the name of the petitioner of which instalment is to be paid. The complaint was also made to the Superintendent of Police in regard to demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- by the Opposite Party No.2. The petitioner is residing in another house along with children and she is not being maintained by the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 is getting 55,000/- rupees per month. He has agricultural land and house as well worth Rs. 50,00,000/-. In view of the above, prayed for the maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- for herself and also for the children. 3. The Opposite Party No.2 is getting 55,000/- rupees per month. He has agricultural land and house as well worth Rs. 50,00,000/-. In view of the above, prayed for the maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- for herself and also for the children. 3. On behalf of Opposite Party-husband the show-cause reply was given on the ground that the responding Opposite Party never tortured the petitioner physically or mentally as alleged rather he kept her with love, affection and dignity. The Opposite Party is the Pump Operator in C.C.L. not as a Dumber operator. The responding Opposite Party has provided all the facilities as per his financial status to the petitioner. He did not obtain the loan and never pressurised to the complainant to repay the loan amount and never made demand of dowry as alleged in the year 2017. Whatever loan was taken, the instalment of the same is being paid by responding Opposite Party. The responding Opposite Party is getting 40,000/- rupees per month. He has no other landed property. He has been properly maintaining the petitioner-wife and both the children as well. The fee, educational requirement, cloths, medicine and accommodation everything is being provided by the responding Opposite Party to the children. Rest of the allegations as made in the Maintenance Application are denied by the responding Opposite Party. 4. On behalf of petitioner in oral evidence examined P.W.1 Chanchala Pandey P.W.2 Ridhanshu Pandey, P.W.3 Vyas Upadhaya. 5. In documentary evidence, the petitioner adduced Ext.1 certified copy of the F.I.R. of Ramgarh (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 30 of 2018, Ext. 2 certified copy of chare-sheet of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 30 of 2018, Ext. 3 salary slip of Opposite Party for the month of October, 2021 6. On behalf of Opposite Party in oral evidence examined OPW.1-Rajesh Kumar Pandey, OPW 2 Ali Ahmad. 7. In documentary evidence filed Ext. A the online computer copy of Register-II in the name of Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Chanchala Pandey, Ext. B the online computer printed document of TATA Nano Car bearing registration No. JH02AA-1312, Ext. B/1 the online computer printed document of Hero Honda Glamor motorcycle bearing registration No. JH02AK-1486, Ext. B/2 the online computer printed document of Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle bearing registration No. JH02AB-1925, Ext. C the computer downloaded print of loan statement of Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Ext. B/1 the online computer printed document of Hero Honda Glamor motorcycle bearing registration No. JH02AK-1486, Ext. B/2 the online computer printed document of Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle bearing registration No. JH02AB-1925, Ext. C the computer downloaded print of loan statement of Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Ext. D pay slip of Rajesh Kumar Pandey for the month of February 2022. 8. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ramgarh after hearing the rival submissions of the learned Counsel of the parties, passed the impugned order on 06.08.2022 whereby the Maintenance Application of the petitioner was dismissed. 9. Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 06.08.2022, this Cr. Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner-wife on the ground that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law as the same is not based on the proper appreciation of the evidence. The petitioner-wife is having no source of income and both the sons are residing with the petitioner. There is ample evidence in regard to the demand of dowry and also harassing the petitioner. The finding recorded by the court-below is perverse, is not based on the proper appreciation of the evidence. In view of the above prayed to allow this Cr. Revision and to set aside the impugned order passed by the court-below. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. For disposal of this Cr. Revision following point of determination is being framed: Whether the impugned Judgment passed by the court-below is sustainable in the eye of law. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Maintenance Petition of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned court-below on the very ground that the petitioner has been residing separate from her husband without any sufficient reason while there is ample evidence on record that the petitioner has been tortured by the Opposite Party-husband and harassed for demand of dowry. He had neglected the petitioner to maintain her and also both the children of the petitioner. It is further contended that the learned court-below has not framed the very point of determination in regard to the petitioner being unable to maintain herself and also in regard to neglecting by the Opposite Party to maintain the petitioner. 12. He had neglected the petitioner to maintain her and also both the children of the petitioner. It is further contended that the learned court-below has not framed the very point of determination in regard to the petitioner being unable to maintain herself and also in regard to neglecting by the Opposite Party to maintain the petitioner. 12. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the O.P.No.2 opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that the learned court-below has rightly framed the issue in regard to the dispute between the parties. 13. It is the settled law that the scope of a Cr. Revision against the order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is wider than under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.; while disposing the Cr. Revision against the order of maintenance, the revisional court is also empowered to intervene the finding recorded by the court-below if the same is perverse and not appreciating the evidence on record in a proper perspective. 14. From the very perusal of the Maintenance Application and the show-cause reply given on behalf of the Opposite Party the following point of determinations are being arisen. i. Whether the petitioners have been neglected by the Opposite Party to maintain them. ii. Whether the petitioner-wife has been residing separate from her husband without any sufficient reason. iii. To what amount of maintenance, the petitioner is entitled. 15. Disposal of point of determination No. 1 & 2. Both the point of determinations are being enter connected to each other and both are maintained with the same evidence so both are decided simultaneously by the common order. 16. Herein it would be pertinent to mention that this petition for maintenance was preferred on behalf of petitioners on 22.01.2019 as per averment made in the petition, petitioner No.2 Riyanshu Pandey was 17 years old, petitioner No.3 Ridhanshu Pandey was 15 years old. During the pendency of the Maintenance Petition, petitioner No.2 Riyanshu Pandey became major in the year 2020 and the petitioner No.3 Ridhanshu Pandey became major in January, 2022. During the pendency of the Maintenance Petition, petitioner No.2 Riyanshu Pandey became major in the year 2020 and the petitioner No.3 Ridhanshu Pandey became major in January, 2022. Therefore, after attaining majority, the petitioner No. 2 and 3 shall not be entitled to maintenance unless and until any physical or mental abnormality or injuries there to enable to maintain by themselves in view of Section 125 (1) (b) (c) of Cr.P.C. As such prior to date of their attaining majority both the petitioner No.2 Riyanshu Pandy and Petitioner No.3 Ridhanshu Pandey would be entitled to maintenance till the date of their attaining majority provided that they were also neglected to maintain by the Opposite Party. 17. On behalf of petitioner in regard to the averment that she and her children has not been maintained by the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party has neglected them to maintain examined P.W.1-Chanchala Pandey herself. In her Examination-in-chief this witness deposed all those averments which were made in the Maintenance Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and also deposed that the Opposite Party never maintained the petitioner and her both the children. Never gave expenses for their study, clothing and medical facilities. In the Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 30 of 2018 wherein the charge-sheet was also filed by the I.O. a compromise was arrived on 06.03.2019 before the Medication Centre, Ramgarh in which the Opposite Party had assured that he would hand over the whole of his salary and arrear of the bonus in the hands of his wife so that she could reimburse the loan which had been taken. This settlement is also made Annexure-X of the affidavit given in Examination-in-chief on behalf of Chanchala Pandey. It has been further stated that during the pendency of the Maintenance Application also a compromise arrived between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Ramgarh in which it was agreed by the Opposite Party that he would pay the amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month for each of his son but subsequently he deviated from the same. This settlement is also marked as Ext. Y in his affidavit which is filed as Examination-in-chief. In cross-examination this witness says that she and her both the children reside in her Sasural; but her mother-in-law and husband reside separate in her Sasural. Her husband did not give the expenses for maintenance of her. This settlement is also marked as Ext. Y in his affidavit which is filed as Examination-in-chief. In cross-examination this witness says that she and her both the children reside in her Sasural; but her mother-in-law and husband reside separate in her Sasural. Her husband did not give the expenses for maintenance of her. She did not want divorce from her husband. In case of cruelty for demand of dowry, the settlement has taken place. This witness denies the suggestion that she want to take the whole of the salary of her husband in her hand so as to have control on the expenses. Her husband has also purchased the land both in his own name and the petitioner(wife). 18. P.W.2 Riyanshu Pandey is the son of petitioner No.1 and of Opposite Party. This witness also corroborated the averment made in the Maintenance Application and also the statement of P.W.1 in his Examination-in-chief. In cross-examination this witness says that there is a double storey house of his father. This house is ancestral. There is four decimal land in the name of his father and mother. The car No.JH02AA-1312 is in the name of his mother. The bike JH02AB-1925 is in whose name he is not aware. My father resides alone and his fooding and lodging is separate. His father is pump operator not the dumper operator. How much salary he gets he is not aware. His father used to make demand for dowry. How much dowry was demanded he does not recollect but the dispute was between the two. His grandmother also resides separate. It is not so that his father has erected a double storey house on which second storey he and his mother reside. 19. P.W.3 Vyas Upadhayay in his Examination-in-Chief says that Chanchala Pandey is his daughter. After few years of marriage, his son-in-law tortured his daughter and did not maintain his daughter and the children. He also made demand of dowry for the same case was also registered which was subsequently ended with a settlement. His daughter along with children is residing in a dilapidated house in her Sasural and the Opposite Party resides in other house. This witness in his cross-examination says that his daughter resides in the house which is ancestral property in her Sasural. 20. On behalf of Opposite Party in oral evidence examined O.P.W. 1 Rajesh Kumar Pandey. His daughter along with children is residing in a dilapidated house in her Sasural and the Opposite Party resides in other house. This witness in his cross-examination says that his daughter resides in the house which is ancestral property in her Sasural. 20. On behalf of Opposite Party in oral evidence examined O.P.W. 1 Rajesh Kumar Pandey. This witness in his Examination-in-chief says that after the death of his father, he got his two sister married after having taken loan from the Bank. He had got the service on the compassionate ground after death of his father during his service period. He has also purchased four decimal of land in the name of himself and his wife in the year 2008 of which revenue is being paid by him, the online paper of the receipt 2022-2023 is Ext. A. TATA Nano car registration No. JH02AA-1312 is in the name of his wife. The registration book online paper is Ext.B. Hero Honda Glamor motorcycle bearing registration No.JH02AK-1486 is in the name of his wife for which loan was taken in the name of his wife. The registration book online paper is Ext. B/1. Hero Honda motorcycle Passion Pro was also purchased by taking loan in the name of his wife, the registration number of the same is JH02AB-1925, the registration book online paper is Ext. B/2. In the year 2017 the loan of 3,50,000/- was taken to purchase the land, the same has not been deposited by him till date. Now the amount of 9,43,231/- is an arrear of the loan. The statement online paper of the same are Ext. C. The pay slip is being filed by him which is Ext. D. From his salary 13,000/- are deducted out of which 3,000/- are deducted for the maintenance of his mother and 10,000/- are being deducted for the maintenance of his wife- Chanchala Pandey. He has erected a double storey house in which his wife and both the children reside. He is not residing in the very house rather he is residing in a Khapra house. His both the sons are major. In cross-examination this witness says that he is pump operator in Rajrappa Washery C.C.L. He had purchased the land in the year 2010. The vehicles were purchased by him from his own money. In the year January, February and March his income tax was deducted 88,036/- rupees. His both the sons are major. In cross-examination this witness says that he is pump operator in Rajrappa Washery C.C.L. He had purchased the land in the year 2010. The vehicles were purchased by him from his own money. In the year January, February and March his income tax was deducted 88,036/- rupees. It is wrong to say that before the Mediation Centre, it was agreed that he would pay 20,000/- rupees for his wife and for the children as well. 21. P.W.2 is Ali Ahmed. This witness says that he has visiting terms to the house of Rajesh Kumar Pandey. He has double storey house. His wife resides on the second floor of the house. Rajesh Kumar Pandey maintains his wife and both the children and fulfils the needs of them. In cross-examination this witness says that Rajesh Kumar Pandey does not drink. He never hurled abuse or did mar-pit with his wife and children. He is giving 3,000/- rupees per month to his mother for maintenance. He is aware that Rajesh Kumar Pandey has been paying 10,000/- rupees per month as interim maintenance for his wife and children. 22. From the cumulative evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, it is found that the petitioners are residing in a double storey house though separate from the Opposite Party who is husband of petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioner No.2 & 3. 22.1 The Opposite Party has been maintaining his wife and both the children. He has also provided the facilities to his wife and children as well which is evident from the admitted evidence on record that 04 decimal land was purchased by the Opposite Party in the name of him and his wife as well. The Nano car is also being purchased in the name of his wife. The two motorcycles are also purchased by taking loan in the name of wife. It also came in evidence that these motorcycles and Nano car are also being used by the two sons and the Opposite Party himself. There is no evidence that the wife or the sons were deprived of using the car and the two motorcycles which were purchased by the Opposite Party in order to provide facilities and comforts to his wife and children. There is evidence that the Opposite Party has also borrowed loan in order to get his two sisters married from HDFC Bank. There is evidence that the Opposite Party has also borrowed loan in order to get his two sisters married from HDFC Bank. He has also annexed the documentary evidence to this effect. The instalment of the loan are also being paid by the opposite party. As such the thorough conduct of the Opposite Party shows that he has been dedicated to his wife and the children so as to provide them comforts as per their needs. 22.2 That as per admission made by P.W.1 Chanchala Pandey a compromise has also arrived before the Medication Centre, Ramgarh in maintenance proceeding. The settlement arrived in Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2018 before the Mediation Centre, Ramgarh wherein it was agreed that the Opposite Party would hand over his whole of salary and the bonus amount to his wife so as to control on the expenses and to disburse the loan. 22.3 Herein the conduct of the wife becomes relevant which shows that her sole cause to reside separate from her husband is that her husband is not handing over whole of the salary to him so as to control on the expenses. So far as the extravagancy of the Opposite Party is concerned, the independent witness has stated that the Opposite Party never drinks and there is no cogent evidence in regard to extravagancy of the Opposite Party. 22.4 It is evident from the evidence that both the children were also maintained during their minority by the Opposite Party. The two settlements arrived between the parties before the competent authority i.e. Mediation Centre, Ramgarh are on record. One is at page 52 to page 53 and another is at page 54. 22.5 From the very perusal of both these settlements arrived between the parties, it is found that no dispute is left between the parties in regard to maintenance. If any breach of the said settlement is made, the petitioner-wife has ample remedy to get the same enforced by initiating legal proceeding before the competent authority in case the breach of condition of said settlement is committed by Opposite Party. It is pertinent to mention that one settlement was made before the Medication Centre in Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2018 and another was made in the very Maintenance Application, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court. It is pertinent to mention that one settlement was made before the Medication Centre in Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2018 and another was made in the very Maintenance Application, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court. 22.6 It is evident that the Opposite Party has been maintaining his wife and children. He has not been neglecting them to maintain rather it is found that the wife is residing along with children in a separate house from her husband without any sufficient reason. The reason which has been shown by her in her Maintenance Application, the same is also not proved from the evidence on record and is not found reasonable. 22.7 In view of the above, as per provisions given in Section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C. the wife residing separate without any reasonable cause from her husband is not entitled to the maintenance but simultaneously the husband-Opposite Party has also been maintaining her in view of the settlement arrived between Medication Centre in Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2018 and also Mediation Centre, Ramgarh. 23. In view of the finding recorded on both the point of determinations, it is found that the petitioners have not been neglected by the Opposite Party and the wife has been residing separate from her husband-Opposite Party without any reasonable cause. Accordingly, both the point of determinations are being decided in favour of Opposite Party-husband. 24. In view of the conclusion drawn after disposal of the above two point of determinations, there is no need to give any finding on point of determination number (iii) as the same would be futile. 25. In view of the above, the impugned Judgment whereby the Maintenance Application of the petitioner has been rejected by the court-below though based on different grounds needs no interference and the learned court-below has rightly dismissed the Maintenance Application. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision deserves to be dismissed. 26. This Cr. Revision is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment passed by the learned court-below is affirmed. 27. Let the learned court-below be communicated in regard to the Judgment.