Dinesh Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4615 Jhar

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                        Cr. Revision No. 1209 of 2018
                                              ....

                 Dinesh Pandey                                        ....     Petitioner
                                              Versus
                1. The State of Jharkhand
                2. Punam Devi                                          .... Opp. Parties
                                              ....
                 CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Petitioner              : Mr. Ramawatar Sharma, Adv.
                For the State                   : Mr. A.P. Topno, APP
                For the O.P. No.2               : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Adv.
                                                ....

05/06.12.2021             Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the State as

well as learned counsel for the O.P. No.2-wife.

This revision application has been filed against the order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Original Maintenance Case No.327 of 2014, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party No.2-wife.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the husband is unemployed youth and as such he is unable to maintain his wife. It has been further submitted that the procedure prescribed by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 in the case of Rajneesh Vrs. Neha & Anr has not been followed. On above fact, impugned order has been challenged.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the wife has supported the order of maintenance and submitted that she has been harassed for non fulfillment of demand of dowry and for that Giridih (M) P.S. Case No.276 of 2014 has been lodged under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She has some medical problem which is the prime reason for harassment. It has been further submitted that husband has also filed a divorce petition against the wife. Thus, it is clear that the wife has no other option but to reside separately and she is unable to maintain herself.

It appears that the court below has considered the argument of the parties, evidence brought on record and finding has been recorded by the court below that the wife is unable to maintain herself and husband has landed property and on this consideration, maintenance has been awarded.

So far as argument of the revisionist that judgment has not been followed, cannot be accepted, as it is applicable to the pending cases.

In view of above discussion, this Court finds no reasonable reason to interfere with the order of the court below, accordingly, the present criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/