Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.939 of 2013
Deepak Kumar Dubey, S/o Late Ganesh Dubey
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Sheetal Dubey (Johari), D/o Vishnu Prahash Johari, Ex-
wife of Deepak Kumar Dubey
3. Master Sagar Dubey, S/o Deepak Dubey
4. Master Shiv Kumar Dubey @ Shashank Dubey (Minor) sons
of Deepak Kumar Dubey ...... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarju Prasad, Adv.
For the Opp. Party
Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv.
---
16/01.03.2021 Heard Mr. Sarju Prasad, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 to 4.
3. The present revision application has been filed for
setting aside the order dated 20.06.2013 passed in M.P. Case
No.106/06 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bokaro
whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to order for
payment of Rs.35,000/- per month as maintenance allowances
to opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 under the provisions of Section
125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is working in Coal India Limited. The learned counsel
for the opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 at the outset has referred to
order dated 12.02.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.894 of
2013 to submit that the said criminal revision was filed by the
present opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 for enhancement of
maintenance amount considering the fact that quantum of
maintenance should have been fixed from the date of filing of
the application and not from the date of the order and by the
order dated 20.06.2013, the quantum of maintenance was
directed to be paid from the date of the order. Learned counsel
submits that this Court refused to interfere with the order of
maintenance dated 20.06.2013 in Criminal Revision No.894 of
2013 by recording that the application for maintenance was
allowed on proper assessment of income of the present
petitioner (opposite party no.1 in the said case) and this Court
also took into consideration that if the petition for maintenance
was allowed right from the date of filing the application way
back in the year 2006 then the petitioner (opposite party no.1 of
the said case) would be saddled with a liability of almost 30
lakhs and accordingly, this Court declined to interfere with the
order of maintenance and also observed that the petitioners (the
opposite party nos.2 to 4 in the present case) could avail remedy
under Section 127 Cr.P.C by making a necessary application
before the learned court below for the purposes of enhancement
of maintenance.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 has
submitted that not only maintenance has been fixed after
proper appreciation of the income of the petitioner, but the
same has been fixed from the date of the order, and not from
the date of application, pursuant to which the petitioner is
highly benefited. He submits that there is no illegality or
perversity calling for any interference in the order of
maintenance.
6. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that some of the opposite parties have attained majority by now
and accordingly, the order of maintenance is required to be
modified. However, during the course of hearing, he has not
disputed that the petitioner has remedy under Section 127 of
Cr.P.C before the learned court below itself on account of any
subsequent development which has taken place after the order
of maintenance. He is not in a position to say as to whether any
application under Section 127 Cr.P.C has been filed before the
learned court below or not.
7. Further, during the course of hearing, learned counsel
for the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity
or illegality in the impugned order of maintenance. This Court
also finds that neither the marriage nor the fact that two
children were born out of marriage is disputed.
8. Learned counsel for the State supports the submission
made on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 to 4.
9. Arguments concluded. Post this case for judgment on
15.03.2021.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
