Sunil Kumar Burnwal @ Munna @ Sunil ... vs Anita Devi @ Mamta Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 3526 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2017
                                    -----------

Sunil Kumar Burnwal @ Munna @ Sunil Kumar .....Petitioner Versus

1. Anita Devi @ Mamta Devi

2. Rishu Kumari ....Opposite Parties

Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

-----

                For the Petitioner         : Ms. Rashmi Kumari, Advocate
                For the Opp. Parties       :
                                               .....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities were good.

........

I.A. No. 436 of 2017 05/21.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 2 days in preferring the present criminal revision.

Considering the nature of dispute and reasons assigned in the present interlocutory application, I. A. No. 436 of 2017 stands allowed and disposed of. Delay of 2 days in preferring the present criminal revision is hereby condoned.

Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

In spite of valid service of notice upon the opposite parties, nobody appears on their behalf.

The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Maintenance Case No. 31 of 2014 on the issue that wife is not entitled for maintenance and quantum of compensation is also excessive.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier a case being C. Case No. 899 of 2014 (T. R. No. 213/2018) has been filed by the wife against the husband (the present petitioner), which has resulted in acquittal and for that purpose he has filed the photocopy of the judgment dated 26.06.2018. Relevant para -12 of the judgment dated 26.06.2018 reads as under:

"12. On scrutiny all the evidences and materials available on record, I find that in order to prove its case, complainant has been able to examine two witnesses including herself as C. W. 2. The complainant i.e. C.W. 2 has made only general allegation of assault of her by the accused persons and stated only about the quarrels which took place at her matrimonial home which arose due to domestic matters and she has further admitted that she has voluntarily compromised this case with the accused persons and that she is now living happily with her husband and children. Moreover C.W. 1 was not examined after charge so her evidence cannot be considered in lack of her cross-examination. The complaint has completely failed to state about any mental or physical torture, she has gone through at the hands of the accused persons and regarding the allegation of demand of dowry by the accused persons, she has stated in para 7 of her examination that accused persons have not demanded dowry. Further, on perusal of the record, it appears that matter has been compromised between both the parties and complainant declined to adduce any further evidence in the instant case. The evidences and materials available on the record are not sufficient to prove the ingredients of section 498A of the I.P.C. and 3 of the D.P.Act against the accused persons and in this way, complainant has miserable failed to prove its case against the accused persons under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and 3 of the D. P. Act."

Referring to the above paragraph, it has been submitted that since there is compromise between the parties, interference is required by this Court in the present criminal revision.

It appears that this point is not available for the present revisionist as it is a subsequent development. Under the specific provision under 127 of the Cr. P. C., revisionist is at liberty to take recourse. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it has been submitted that the husband earns nothing. An unusual plea has been taken and Court below after considering the evidence on records assessed the income of the husband around Rs. 50,000/- per month. Considering the status of the parties and materials available on records, Rs. 5,000/- per month has been granted as maintenance to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the daughter.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any irrationality in the impugned order in grating maintenance and as such I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, the present criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J) kamlesh/