Tribhuwan Rai @ Tribhuwan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4146 Jhar

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                     Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2017
                                              ....

Tribhuwan Rai @ Tribhuwan Singh .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Basmati Devi .... Opposite Parties ....

                CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Petitioner           : Mr. Ramawatar Sharma, Adv.
                For the State                : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, APP
                For the O.P. No.2            : Mr. P.C. Sinha, Adv.
                                             ....
06/02.11.2021             Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State

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

This revision application has been filed against the order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Maintenance Case No.359 of 2012, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the O.P. No.2.

It has been challenged on the ground that the claimant is the second wife of the revisionist and she is not entitled for maintenance. For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bakulabai & Anr. Vrs. Gangaram & Anr. reported in 1988 1 SCC 537 and in the case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vrs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav reported in 1988 1 SCC 530.

It is trite that the second wife is not entitled for maintenance. The family court has considered this aspect of the matter and recorded the finding that the claimant is the first wife.

The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the court below has not properly appreciated the evidence on record but it cannot be a scope of the revisional court.

It has been further argued that the wife is not residing with the husband and there is no plausible reason for not residing with the husband and as such, she is not entitled for maintenance.

This argument of the revisionist is self-contradictory. On the one hand, he is claiming that she is not legally wedded wife and this allegation itself amounts to cruelty giving justification to the wife for not residing with the husband.

In view of above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present case, accordingly, the present criminal revision stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Shahid/