T. Rajesh vs Mrs. T. Tirumala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3666 Jhar

                                -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.736 of 2017

    T. Rajesh                                  ......       Petitioner

                            Versus
    1.   Mrs. T. Tirumala
    2.   T. Tanishq
    3.   The State of Jharkhand                ......    Opp. Parties
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Mahato, Advocate for the O.P Nos.1 & 2: Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate For the State : Mr. N. K. Singh, A.P.P

---------

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

---------

               th
11/Dated: 28        September, 2021

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P and learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 & 2.

2. The present revision application has been filed against the order dated 15.12.2016, passed by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No.57 of 2014, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month to the opposite parties, from June, 2015.

3. The case has been adjourned for several times. On the last occasion, the husband/ revisionist had shown his willingness to save his matrimonial house and on that statement, the matter was adjourned and both, the husband and the wife, were directed to appear through video conferencing in the National Lok Adalat. The wife/ O.P. No.01 had appeared earlier also and today also she has appeared and she has shown her willingness to save her matrimonial house, but the husband has neither appeared nor has paid any amount towards the maintenance. The other parameters of the impugned judgment has not been disputed except the quantum of maintenance.

Considering the attitude of the husband/ petitioner, it is evident that he is only interested in keeping the matter alive

and creating chaos by not paying the maintenance amount. It is trite that proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and it is temporary in nature.

4. Considering the materials available on record and the attitude of the husband/ revisionist, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order accordingly, the criminal revision application is, hereby, rejected.

5. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-