Jharkhand High Court
Ainul Haque @ Md. Ainul Haque vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1267 of 2019
Ainul Haque @ Md. Ainul Haque ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Afsana Fatma @ Afsana Praveen
3. Fija Naz ... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the O.P. Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Saibal Maitra, Advocate
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the
parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are
good.
---
04/15.02.2022: Heard the parties.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the
judgment dated 05.08.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, A/C.,
Latehar in Original Maintenance Case No.05 of 2018 by which application filed by
Opp. Party Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has been allowed by directing
the revisionist to give Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2000/- per month to
the minor daughter as maintenance from the date of the application.
It has been submitted that the husband is ready and willing to keep his
wife with proper care and dignity and as such, wife is not entitled for any
maintenance. It has been further argued that the income has wrongly been assessed
and the revisionist is very poor person and not capable to pay quantum of
maintenance as ordered by the court below. He has only seven Katha of agricultural
land and has no other source of income. On the above basis, the impugned judgment
has been challenged.
Counsel for the wife has supported the order of maintenance. It has been
submitted that although husband is making submission regarding keeping the wife
with proper care and dignity but on the other hand, he has filed false case against the
parents of the wife. Even such observation has been made by the court below in
Complaint Case No.2699 of 2017 in its order dated 14.08.2018. Relevant portion is
quoted hereinbelow:
"However, the complainant has not shown anything, which can
show to this court that he tried to bring his wife to his home. It
seems that to save himself from matrimonial offence cases,
complainant has filed this case".
It has been further submitted that the husband works as Compounder and
earns Rs.30,000/- per month, even then no maintenance has been given to the minor
daughter which shows harassing attitude of the husband.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record,
it appears that marriage and birth of the daughter are not in dispute. There is criminal
case between the parties. The matter has been tried to be mediated by the court below
but the mediation has failed. The wife has apprehension of harassment due to non
fulfilment of the demand of dowry. P.W.2-Shekh Sarfuddin Ansari, father of the
Opp. Party No.2 has stated in clear terms that revisionist has stated that instead of
keeping his wife, he will give divorce to his daughter. Considering the material
brought on record, the court below has recorded the finding that the wife has
reasonable reason for not staying with the husband and she is also unable to maintain
herself, as she earns nothing. On the above basis, entitlement has been decided.
So far quantum of maintenance is concerned, oral evidence has been
brought on record by the wife-P.W.1 and the father-P.W.2 that husband works as
Compounder in private clinic and earns Rs.30,000/- per month although that fact has
been denied by the husband. Considering the conflicting evidence brought on record
and evaluating the same and after interacting with the parties, the court below has
granted maintenance of Rs.5000/-per month i.e. (Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife
and Rs.2000/- to the minor daughter).
I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
It has been further argued by the wife that maintenance amount has been
awarded from the August, 2019 i.e. from the date of the order although the issue has
been settled that it should be from the date of application (judgment of Apex Court in
the case of Rajnesh v. Neha {(2021) 2 SCC 324).
In view of the judgment of Apex Court, the impugned judgment is
modified to the extent that maintenance amount, as awarded, should be payable from
the date of application.
With the above modification, this criminal revision is disposed of.
Pending I.A., if any also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi/-
