Ranjit Kumar Singh @ Ranjit Singh vs Smt. Kalyani Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 3404 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
               Criminal Revision No. 1084 of 2016
Ranjit Kumar Singh @ Ranjit Singh, s/o Sri Ramadhir Singh, r/o
Village-Litta, PO & PS-Itkhori, District-Chatra. ... Petitioner

                                Versus

Smt. Kalyani Devi, w/o Ranjit Singh, r/o Village-Litta, PO & PS-
Itkhori, District-Chatra. Presently residing at Village-Sale, PO &
PS-Itkhori, District-Chatra.                    ... Opposite Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner      : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. B. K. Dubey, Advocate
                           ---------

Order No.09/Dated: 26th August 2022

This revision petition at the instance of the husband is directed against the order dated 23 rd June 2016 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 38 of 2012.

2. By this order the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chatra has granted Rs.4000/- to the wife of the petitioner and Rs.2000/- for the minor daughter for their monthly maintenance.

3. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold contentions viz. (i) the Principal Judge, Family Court granted maintenance without considering earnings of the petitioner and (ii) quantum of maintenance has been decided on mere surmises and conjectures.

4. At the outset, it may be indicated that the object behind section 125 Cr.P.C is to ensure that a wife, minor children and old parents do not suffer in destitution. Section 125 Cr.P.C has been brought in the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to provide social justice to the helpless wife, minor children and old parents.

5. In "Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.)" (1991) 2 SCC 375, the object behind section 125 Cr.P.C has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these words:

"3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. ..."

2 Criminal Revision No. 1084 of 2016

6. The case set up by the opposite party is that marriage between the parties which was solemnized on 19 th May 2005 was robbed by demand of Rs.50,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle by the family members of the petitioner. In connection to the demand of dowry a First Information Report vide Itkhori PS Case No. 160 of 2008 was lodged by the opposite party. Thereafter sessions of mediation were held between the petitioner and the opposite party and she was sent to live in her matrimonial home again. She alleged that she was further tortured and her husband and others attempted to kill her by setting on fire and after her treatment, therefore, she went to live in her parents' house. As per the Panchayat's decision she opened a fixed-deposit of Rs. 2 Lakhs in the name of her daughter in the State Bank of India, Itkhori from a

joint Bank Account. On 8th February 2011, the opposite party again went to live in her matrimonial house but she was again tortured and kicked out with her daughter from the matrimonial

house on 12th March 2011. Therefore, she instituted Complaint Case No. 76 of 2011 in Civil Court, Chatra. She also alleged that the petitioner has contracted a second marriage with Smt. Tanu Devi and living with her in village Litta.

7. In her application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C), the applicant who is opposite party in the present proceeding pleaded that she is unskilled and unemployed and has no independent source of income to maintain herself and her minor daughter.

8.          In     his    reply   to       the   claims     made        by     his      wife,
the   petitioner    set    up     a    defence     that      the      petition       under

section 125 Cr.P.C was instituted to harass him. On demand of dowry, the petitioner took a plea that after his retirement his father deposited Rs.4 Lakhs in fixed-deposit in the joint name of the petitioner and his wife.

9. During the trial the opposite party examined herself as PW1. Her mother came to the witness box as PW2 to support her claim for maintenance. Several documents were also produced in 3 Criminal Revision No. 1084 of 2016

evidence by her to lay support to her claim for grant of maintenance.

10. The petitioner who was the opposite party in Original Maintenance Case No. 38 of 2012 examined three witnesses - he was DW1. He has also produced several documentary evidence to show that he does not have landed properties and income as his wife has claimed. Another plea set up by the petitioner was that his wife withdrew Rs. 2 Lakhs from the bank by encashing the fixed-deposit in the joint name, to show that out of greed for more money the opposite party has filed maintenance case.

11. On the basis of the materials on record, the Principal Judge, Family Court found that on death of his father the petitioner became the sole surviving legal heir; he has agricultural lands from which his annual income was about Rs. 60,000/- and; he has monthly income of Rs.11,550/-.

12. The Principal Judge, Family Court has held as under:

"It appears from the record that P.W.1 Smt. Kalyani Devi has specifically deposed that she is not doing anything and she is not able to maintain herself and minor daughter and opposite party has been working as manager in petrol pump at Dhanbad. He has been drawing monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-. He also has 8 acres agricultural land upon which all crops are cultivated and he earns Rs.2,50,000/- per annum from agriculture. On the other hand D.W.1 Ranjeet Singh is opposite party in this case and he has denied to have been working at Petrol pump and drawing monthly salary of Rs.18,000/- and he has deposed that he has no agricultural land in his own name and he has been earning Rs.3,000/- per month by working Khalasi in Karnataka. D.W.2 Smt. Rajvanti Devi has also deposed that opposite party has been earning Rs.3,000/- per moth by working as Khalasi in Karnataka. It appears from the evidence led by both the parties that neither petitioner has brought any documentary evidence on record to show that opposite party has been working as manager at petrol pump in Dhanbad and earns Rs.18,000/- per month nor opposite party has brought any evidence on record to show that he is working as khalasi and earning Rs.3,000/- p.m, however, one thing is very much clear from the evidence available on record that it is admitted case of opposite party that he is working as khalasi. Under these circumstance, I find it appropriate to assess the monthly income of oppsite party according to minimum wages of unskilled worker notified by Government of Jharkhand as Petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that opposite party is semi-skilled or skilled worker. According to the notification of Government of Jharkhand, monthly minimum wages of unskilled worker is Rs. 6550/-. In any case opposite party, must not be earning less than Rs. 6550/-. Therefore, I assess monthly income of opposite party from his khalsi work to be Rs.6,550/-. So far as the opposite party's income from agriculture is concern, petitioner's witnesses have deposed that opposite party has 8 acres agricultural land and earns Rs.2,50,000/- per annum from 4 Criminal Revision No. 1084 of 2016

agriculture. On the other hand, D.W.1 Ranjit Singh in his para 16 of his examination-in-chief has stated that he does not have any land in his own name. D.W.3 Ballabh Rana in para 9 of examination-in-chief has deposed that opposite party does not have any land in his own name and he has 9 kaththa ancestral land. As petitioner has not brought any documentary evidence on record to show that opposite party owes or possess 8 acres land and even she has not disclosed Khata no. Plot no. or Thana no. of opposite party's agriculture, it cannot be believed that opposite party possess 8 acres land. However, opposite party's own witness, D.W.3 has stated that opposite party has received 8 kaththa land in lieu of his share in ancestral land. From evidence available on record, it is clear that opposite party admittedly possess 8 kathas agriculture land. It has also come in evidence that after retirement from BCCL, opposite party's father has died and he is the only son. Therefore, it is the opposite party who must be cultivating this land and deriving income. Considering opposite party's agricultural land to be 8 kaththa, I feel that he must be having minimum agriculture income of Rs. 60,000/- per annum from this land and from both the sources, opposite party is having monthly income of Rs. 11,550/-. I feel that out of his monthly income of Rs. 11,550/- opposite party must pay Rs.4000/- p.m. to his wife and Rs. 2000/- p.m to his minor daughter as maintenance allowance.

Taking into consideration monthly income of opposite party of Rs. 11,550/- p.m I find and hold that the petitioner/wife and her minor daughter are entitled for monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively. Thus, this petition is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife as her maintenance allowance from the date of filing of this petition. He is further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to her minor daughter towards her maintenance from the date of filing of this petition till she attains majority. Opposite party is directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within six months from today and to regularly pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- on 10 th day of every English Calender month. Let copy of this judgment be given to both the parties free of cost. "

13. In the opinion of this Court, the plea set up by the petitioner that he is a Khalasi earning Rs.3000/- per month, even if not disbelieved, the amount of maintenance fixed by the Family Court does not warrant interference.

14. A married women becomes entitled for maintenance from the date of her marriage and she is entitled to live a dignified life. In a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C, a husband has to show by leading evidence that he does not have sufficient means to maintain his wife [refer, "Rajathi v. C. Ganesan" (1999) 6 SCC 326]. A wife who asserts that she is unable to maintain herself is not required to establish that she is living in penury, and some income of a wife is not a ground to refuse an order of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. In "Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai" (2008) 2 SCC 316, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression "unable 5 Criminal Revision No. 1084 of 2016

to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. In "Rajathi", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that the statement of a wife that she was unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for the husband to prove otherwise.

15. A proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C is a summary proceeding in which rules of evidence are not applied to a large extent. It has been held that even hearsay evidence is admitted in a summary proceeding to arrive at a just conclusion. The Principal Judge, Family Court has taken into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties and in a 11-page judgment rendered a decision that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.4000/- to his wife and Rs.2000/- for the minor daughter for their monthly maintenance.

16. Another aspect of the matter is that the High Court in exercise of the revisional powers shall not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below and only in cases where the order passed by the inferior Court suffers from patent illegality or absurdity interference by the High Court can be justified. This Court has also in mind that minute examination of the evidence laid during the trial cannot be conducted in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction [refer, "Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar" (1987) 1 SCC 288].

17. Having found so, the present criminal revision petition bereft of merits is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

Amit/