Nilam Kumari Mallik @ Nilam Kumari ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3675 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                   ----

Cr.M.P. No. 3818 of 2017

----

Nilam Kumari Mallik @ Nilam Kumari Mallick, w/o Santosh Mallik and D/o Baijnath Mallik, r/o Patania Tola, PO Sahibganj, PS Sahibganj(Town), District Sahibganj, Jharkhand ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Santosh Mallik, s/o Anandi Mallik, r/o Lohia Nagar, Barmasiya, PO+PS- Katihaar, District-Katihaar, Bihar ...... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- none For the State :- Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, APP For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate

----

5/28.09.2021 On repeated calls, nobody is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel appears for the State.

This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

This petition has been filed for quashing the judgment dated 13.09.2017 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.110/2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj whereby the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the Original Maintenance Case No.110/2014 filed by the petitioner under section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned court has considered the submissions of both the parties and has framed four issues and also examined the exhibits adduced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the O.P.No.2. The concerned court has also considered the admission of the applicant's brother-A.W.-3 who has himself disclosed that he has tried to understand his sister that she should live with her husband and not with other boys. There are other facts which have been considered by the concerned court. The judgment is well founded and the reasons have been stated. The finding is also that the wife was living in adultery and the applicant and her husband both have been living apart by mutual consent from 2006.

Considering living separately by mutual consent and nothing cogent and reliable has been brought to prove that Opposite Party had ever met once with applicant after 2006, no case of interference is made out.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/