Jharkhand High Court
Sarfraz Alam @ Sarfaraz Alam vs Heena Parveen @ Afda Bano on 24 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.106 of 2018
----
Sarfraz Alam @ Sarfaraz Alam .... .... Petitioner
Versus
Heena Parveen @ Afda Bano .... .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv.
For the O.P. : Mr. Anup Kr. Agarwal, 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.
----
th
07/Dated: 24 November, 2021
1. The instant criminal revision application has been filed against the
impugned order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Principal
Judge, Additional Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in
Miscellaneous Case No.88 of 2015 whereby and whereunder, the application
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the opposite party, has
been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per
month to the opposite party as maintenance.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the
opposite party is not entitled for maintenance as she is living in adultery and
for this purpose attention has been drawn to the para-9 of the impugned
judgment. From the impugned judgment, the list of dates has been
mentioned, wherein the opposite party has mentioned different dates and the
date on which she is living separately and the date on which she has given
birth a female child. On that basis, it has been argued that presumption
should be drawn that she was living in adultery.
3. The court below has considered the argument and has rejected the
same stating that on the basis of list of dates spoken by the wife in her
statement, no presumption can be drawn and it is onus upon the husband to
prove the adultery by leading cogent evidence. In the case of adultery, the
person with whom she is in adultery, has to be examined by the petitioner,
but in this case no such examination has been made. On that basis, the claim
of the husband regarding non-payment of the maintenance amount has been
rejected and it has been held that the wife is entitled for maintenance.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the wife has supported the
order of maintenance and submits that the wife had been tortured and for
this, a criminal case has been lodged on 24.01.2014.Thereafter, she is living
separately.
5. Having heard the counsel for the parties and from perusal of the
records, it appears that the husband wants to take benefit of the list of dates
while the adultery is serious question to be raised in the proceeding. In the
present case, there is no such imputation has been made to the wife and no
such question has been put to her. Only on the basis of list of dates,
presumption of adultery has been argued. It is settled principal of law that
adultery has to be pleaded and proved by the cogent evidence. So far as the
parentage of child is concerned, no witness has been brought on record to
disbelieve the parentage and presumption lies in favour of the child.
6. In view of above discussion and considering the reasons assigned by
the court below, this Court does not find any reasonable reason to interfere
with the impugned order dated 29.11.2017. Accordingly, the present
criminal revision application being Criminal Revision No.106 of 2018 stands
dismissed.
Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
