Gurupado Mahato @ Gurupad Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 503 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 Cr. Rev. No. 1513 of 2019
              Gurupado Mahato @ Gurupad Mahato                ...           ... Petitioner
                                     Versus
              1. The State of Jharkhand
              2. Purnima Mahato @ Jayanti Mahato              ...            ... Opp. Parties
                                                ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

              For the Petitioner         : Mr. Jageshwar Mahto, Advocate
              For the State              : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P
                                                ---

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.

---

4/16.02.2022: Heard.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment dated 16.09.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Seraikella Kharsawan in O.M. No.33 of 2018 by which application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the O.P. No.2, has been allowed by directing the revisionist to give Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance.

It has been submitted by the revisionist that Opp. Party No.2 is not legally wedded wife and as such, she is not entitled for any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that both the parties have led several witnesses and the court below has evaluated the same and has recorded the finding that after commission of rape, the revisionist has performed marriage in front of villagers as per local customs. On the basis of the said finding and the fact that the wife has unable to maintain herself and the husband has neglected the wife, the quantum of maintenance of has been awarded.

Considering the above fact, materials available on the record and the reasoning given by the court below, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, it is hereby, dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Ravi/-