Jharkhand High Court
Urmila Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2018
---
1. Urmila Devi
2. Archana Kumari
3. Shailesh Kumar ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Suresh Prasad Mehta ... ... Opp. Parties
With
Criminal Revision No. 401 of 2017
---
Suresh Prasad Mehta ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Urmila Devi
3. Archana Kumari
4. Shailesh Kumar ... ... Opposite Parties
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
.......
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Awnish Shankar, Adv. .(Cr. Revision No. 12 of 2018)
Mr. Rohit, Adv.(Cr. Revision No. 401 of 2017)
For the State : - Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP
Mr. M. K. Mishra, APP.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rohit, Adv. (Cr. Revision No. 12 of 2018)
For the O.P. No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Adv. (Cr. Revision No. 401 of 2017)
.....
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for
the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities were good.
---
I. A. No. 993 of 2018 (in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2018)
08/09.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The instant interlocutory application has been filed in Criminal Revision
No. 12 of 2018 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of
221 days in preferring the present criminal revision.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to
non payment of maintenance since 2011, they have not filed the revision petition
within time.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties has not opposed the prayer so far
as condonation of delay is concerned.
Considering the nature of dispute and reasons assigned in the present
interlocutory application, I. A. No. 993 of 2018 (in Criminal Revision No. 12 of
2018) stands allowed and disposed of. Delay of 221 days in preferring the present
criminal revision is hereby condoned.
Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2018
With
Criminal Revision No. 401 of 2017
Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
Both criminal revisions have been filed against the order dated
22.02.2017 passed by Smt. Rita Mishra, learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Hazaribag in Maintenance Case No. 53 of 2011 whereby maintenance
of Rs. 9,000/- per month has been awarded to the wife and their two children.
Criminal Revision No. 401 of 2017 has been filed by the husband
and Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2018 has been filed by the wife.
From perusal of the order sheet of the Court below, it appears that
findings have been recorded that Suresh Prasad Mehta and Urmila Devi are
legally wedded husband and wife and out of their wedlock, they have been
blessed with one daughter and two sons. As per the deposition of husband, one
son is residing with him and one daughter and one son are residing with his
wife. Salary slip of July, 2018 has been brought on record, which suggests that
husband, who is a constable in Jharkhand Police, is getting Rs. 39,000/- per
month as salary. The Court below has ordered that one son and one daughter,
who are residing with his wife, are entitled for maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per
month each and his wife is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 4000/- i.e totalling
Rs. 9,000/- per month.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the husband that the
husband is ready and willing to keep his wife, but she is not ready to live with
him and as such, she is not entitled for maintenance. Quantum of maintenance
has not been challenged.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the wife that the
wife has approached this Court for grant of maintenance from the date of
institution of maintenance case i.e. on 02.06.2011 and not from the date of
order passed in Maintenance case No. 53 of 2011 on 22.02.2017, which has
been made by the Court below. For this purpose, learned counsel for the wife
has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajnish Vs. Neha and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 569.
Learned counsel for the husband has opposed the prayer and it has
been submitted that Court below has rightly given maintenance from the date
of order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the
records, it appears that husband has taken plea that the marriage was not valid
and as such wife is not entitled for maintenance. However, the husband has
accepted itself in his deposition that one son is residing with him and one
daughter and one son are residing with his wife. This stand of the husband
itself amounts to cruelty when he has taken a plea that marriage between the
parties is not valid in spite of three children and as such, the stand of the wife
is justified in not residing with him. The Court below after considering the
salary of the husband, has granted the quantum of maintenance of Rs. 9,000/-
per month is reasonable and warrants no interference.
So far as prayer for grant of maintenance from the date of institution
of the maintenance case is concerned, as per the judgment of the Apex Court
(supra), maintenance has to be granted from the date of institution of the
maintenance case and as such the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in Maintenance Case No. 53 of
2011 is modified to the extent that the maintenance will be payable from the
date of institution of maintenance case i.e 02.06.2011.
In view of the above observations and discussion, the impugned
order dated 22.02.2017 passed by Smt. Rita Mishra, learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Hazaribag in Maintenance Case No. 53 of 2011 is modified to
the extend indicated hereinabove. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision
Petitions stand disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J)
kamlesh/
