Vimal Murmu @ Munshi Murmu @ Bimal @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2103 Jhar

                                          1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                            Cr. Revision No. 159 of 2014

                     Vimal Murmu @ Munshi Murmu @ Bimal @ Munshi Murmu
                                                       ...  ...  Petitioners
                                         Versus
                     The State of Jharkhand and Ors. ...  ...   Opp. Parties
                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate

---

Through: Video Conferencing

08/29.06.2021

1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

3. Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.-2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the solitary point which is involved in the case is that the present opposite party No.-2 was not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. He also submits that a specific plea was raised before the learned court below that the first marriage of the opposite party No.-2 was solemnized in village Belbathan, but her husband deserted her and thereafter, she started living at her parents' house and she got second marriage in village Hatmari. The learned counsel submits that as the petitioner never solemnized marriage with the opposite party No.-2, the interim order granting maintenance to the opposite party No.-2 and her minor son amounting to Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the order passed by the learned court

below, the petitioner has continued to pay the maintenance to the opposite party No. 2.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties have opposed the prayer and submitted that in a case of maintenance, the court has to prima-facie see whether the applicant was the wife of the opposite party or not. He also submits that one certified copy of the judgment bearing case No. 150/2005 was also filed on behalf of the opposite party No.- 2 (wife), wherein the present petitioner was convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel submits that there is enough material on record to come to a finding that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party No.-2 and accordingly, the impugned order does not call for any interference.

6. Arguments concluded.

7. Post this case on 05.07.2021.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul