Jharkhand High Court
Laxman Oraon vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 6 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.520 of 2012
Laxman Oraon ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Anr. ...... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. J. P. Jha, Senior Advocate
Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Dey, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar Choudhary,
Adv.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
09/06.09.2021 Heard Mr. J.P. Jha, learned Senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Aishwarya Prakash,
Advocate.
2. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar Choudhary, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
3. Heard Mr. Arup Dey, learned A.P.P. appearing on
behalf of the opposite party - State.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the proceeding in connection with grant
of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C is a summary
proceeding and strict rule of evidence will not apply to such
proceedings. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned
order passed by the learned court below is perverse. He submits
that the evidence of P.W.1-the mother of the applicant, has not
been taken into consideration by the learned court below and
accordingly, the impugned order suffers from non-
consideration of material evidences on record. Learned Senior
counsel has also referred to the evidence of O.P.W.5-the
petitioner, as well as the evidence of O.P.W.6, the Advocate,
who has claimed to have prepared affidavit of P.W.1, whose
photocopy was filed before the learned court below as
enclosure to evidence on affidavit of P.W.6. The learned counsel
has submitted that the said affidavit dated 15.07.2002 relating
to the panchayati held on 15.07.2002 when there was customary
divorce call 'chora-chori' between the present petitioner and
opposite party no.2 and these aspects of the matter have not
been properly considered by the learned court below and
accordingly, the impugned order is perverse and is fit to be set
aside.
5. Learned counsel on instructions from his client has also
submitted that he has complied with the order dated 25.02.2013
passed by this Court relating to payment of opposite party no.2.
This fact is strongly denied by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel has referred
to Section 63 (2) of the Evidence Act to submit that in view of
Section 63 (2), a photo-copy of the affidavit was admissible in
evidence as the original of the same was retained by the mother
of the applicant.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party no.2, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the
prayer and has submitted that the learned court below has
considered all the materials on record including the evidence of
P.W.1 and has also discussed the photocopy of the so-called
affidavit dated 15.07.2002 and has rejected the same by a well-
reasoned order. He submits that the affidavit was never
produced in original before the learned court below and a
photocopy of an affidavit cannot be said to be a document
prepared by the same process. He submits that the primary
evidence has not been produced. The learned counsel has also
submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the
opposite party no.2 is admitted, but the plea was taken by the
present petitioner that there was 'chora-chori' (divorce)
between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 in Panchayati
held on 15.07.2002. He submits that the materials on record
having been considered by the learned court below, the
impugned order of maintenance does not call for any
interference by this Court. He also submits that there is no
perversity or illegality in the impugned order and accordingly,
the same does not call for any interference.
7. During the course of argument, it is not in dispute from
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
the so-called affidavit dated 15.07.2002 which is being heavily
relied upon by the petitioner stating that the same indicates that
there was divorce between the petitioner and opposite party
no.2, is certainly not the affidavit of the opposite party no.2, but
is an affidavit alleged to have been executed by the mother of
present opposite party no.2.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
also opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that
the impugned order does not call for any interference.
9. Arguments concluded.
10. Judgment is reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
