Jharkhand High Court
Amaresh Bhattacharya vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.774 of 2018
---
Amaresh Bhattacharya ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jyotsna Bhattacharya ... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nityanand Pd. Choudhary, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Adv.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel
for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and
video qualities are good.
---
07/17.08.2021: The revisionist who is the husband of the O.P. No.2 has approached
to this Court against the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the court of learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2017, whereby
and whereunder the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamtara has allowed the
appeal and modified the order dated 07.08.2017 passed by the learned C.J.M.,
Jamtara, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2500/- per months as maintenance
to the O.P. No.2 from the month of August 2017, to the extent that the
petitioner will pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance and medical
expenses from the month of November, 2017 onwards.
The ground has been taken that the impugned order is ex-parte and
further the O.P. No.2, the wife of the petitioner was getting maintenance of
Rs.4,000/- under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and this fact has been suppressed.
Heard counsel for the parties.
It appears that the marriage has taken place between the parties in
the year 1976 and they are old couple having settled sons. The dispute has
arisen in the old age resulting in present litigation. It appears that a petition
bearing Maintenance Case No.139 (M) of 2013 under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. has been filed before the Family Court, Patna, where as interim
measures Rs.4,000/- per month has been awarded. Subsequently, the present
litigation has started being Domestic Violence Case No.403 of 2016. In the
above case vide order dated 07.08.2017, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jamtara has granted Rs.2500/- per month as maintenance to the aggrieved
from the month of August, 2017. She has preferred an appeal before the
Principal Sessions Judge, Jamtara which has been registered as Criminal
Appeal No.38 of 2017. The said appeal has been disposed of vide order dated
23.03.2018 modifying the compensation amount to Rs.10,000/- from
Rs.2500/-. The husband has approached this Court by filing the present
revision application to review the appellate order.
The grounds of the revisionist are that the order is ex-parte and the
interim maintenance granted earlier has not been taken into consideration.
This ground of the revisionist is per-se beyond the record. It appears from the
judgment dated 23.03.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2017. The
relevant portion of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Heard, the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the
respondent who submitted that the claim made by the
appellant/complainant is not sustainable as the
appellant/complainant has also been granted interim
maintenance in the maintenance case filed by her before
the family court, Patna."
Thus, the very plea of the revisionist is beyond the record, and as
such not sustainable. So far as, maintainability of the present proceeding is
concerned, the matter has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment
reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha & Anr.
In view of above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and
considering the factual matrix of the present case, I find that there is no merit
in the present criminal revision so far as, quantum is concerned. As per
records, it appears that the income of the petitioner is Rs.52,000/- per month,
who is an employee of the State Electricity Board. Out of that 52,000/-,
payment of Rs.10,000/- + Rs.4,000/- = Rs.14,000/- has been granted to the
O.P.No.2 which is not irrational by any scale. Thus, the present revision is not
maintainable questioning either quantum or maintainability or the factual
aspect.
In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this case.
Accordingly, the present revision application being Cr. Rev. No.774 of 2018
is, hereby, dismissed.
Pending I.A. if any, also stands disposed off.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
