Nirmal Gorain vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1751 Jhar

                                  -




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Criminal Revision No. 1489 of 2016
Nirmal Gorain, son of Sri Prahlad Gorain, resident of Parasbania, PO-Khas
Jeenagora, PS-Baliapur, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand)         ... Petitioner
                                      Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Moni Gorain, wife of late Sri Vishnu Gorain, resident of Parasbania,
PO-Khas Jeenagora, PS-Baliapur, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand), presently
residing at village-Het Kandra, PO+PS-Motinagar, District-Dhanbad
                                                    ... Opposite Parties
                                  -------

(Through V.C )

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, APP For the OP no. 2 : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate

------

th Order No.04/Dated: 09 April, 2021

The petitioner is aggrieved of the judgment dated 26.09.2016 passed in Maintenance Petition No. 79 of 2013.

2. The petitioner was adopted by Vishnu Gorain who was an employee of Chasnala Colliery under IISCO Limited. He died in a mine accident and on the request of his wife who is the respondent in this criminal revision he was offered employment on compassionate ground.

3. The applicant an old lady aged about 56 years filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the petitioner. She claimed that her adopted son was earning Rs. 40,000/- per month. The petitioner who was the opposite party in Maintenance Petition No. 79 of 2013 has claimed that a substantial amount of provident fund, gratuity etc. was paid to the applicant after death of Vishnu Gorain and she was getting Rs. 2,000/- per month in the form of interest from the amount of death-cum-retiral benefits received by her. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad has awarded Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance for the applicant.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts disclosed in the present proceeding, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 26.09.2016 and, accordingly, challenge by the petitioner to this order has failed.

5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who has now s uperannuated from service on

-

-2- Criminal Revision No. 1489 of 2016 31.05.2017 is saddled with the liability to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month though his income has now reduced to just about Rs. 16,000/- per month.

6. I.A. No. 6528 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 12.10.2020 which was issued to him for attachment of his immovable property .

7. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submits that after his superannuation from service the petitioner has also received substantial amount from his post retiral benefits and therefore on a plea that he has now retired he cannot avoid liability to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month.

8. Whether the petitioner has received a substantial amount from post retiral benefits or whether such amount is sufficient to saddle him with liability to continue to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the applicant are the issues which can be decided in an application under section 127 CrPC, after the parties would lead evidence. At this stage, during pendency of the application under section 127 CrPC coercing the petitioner to continue to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month may not be proper, however, to provide a viable solution for the present dispute, in my opinion, it would serve the interest of justice if the application under section 127 CrPC filed by the petitioner is decided within three months. It is expected that the litigants shall cooperate and not take adjournments except under unavoidable circumstance.

9. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad shall endeavor to decide the application under section 127 CrPC on or before 16.07.2021. Any amount recovered from the petitioner in excess after the date of his retirement shall be adjusted against the amount of maintenance to be paid to Moni Gorain, in the event in the application under section 127 CrPC the amount of maintenance is reduced.

10. Criminal Revision No. 1489 of 2016 is dismissed.

11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court concerned through "FAX".

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/-