Jharkhand High Court
Dhiraj Kapoor @ Dheeraj Kapoor vs Padmini Kapoor @ Lavisha @ Lavisa on 21 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.316 of 2020
----
Dhiraj Kapoor @ Dheeraj Kapoor .... .... Petitioner
Versus
Padmini Kapoor @ Lavisha @ Lavisa .... .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Pandey, Adv.
For the O.P. :
----
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for
the petitioner had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and
video qualities are good.
----
st
06/Dated: 21 February, 2022
1. The instant criminal revision application has been filed against the
impugned judgment dated 29.01.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No.159 of 2019
whereby and whereunder the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
filed on behalf of the Opposite Party, has been allowed and the revisionist
has been directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the Opposite Party as
maintenance.
2. The present revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated
29.01.2020 assailing the character of the wife. But from perusal of the
impugned order, it appears that nothing has been brought on record except
the oral statement.
3. Mr. Ashok Kr. Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, has specifically stated that the WhatsApp messages and other
materials have been brought on record but the court below has not
considered it. This assertion of learned counsel for the revisionist is contrary
to the impugned order.
When repeatedly asked by this Court, the learned counsel has drawn
my attention to the following statements made in the Para-5(w) of the
present criminal revision petition:-
"That the short facts as may be evident from the perusal of the impugned order
as well as from the original maintenance application, written statement filed on
behalf of the petitioner in said application, and depositions and material
documents filed on behalf of the parties involves in the instant case and which
are relevant and necessary for adjudication of this case is being mentioned in
forgoing sub-Paragraphs:
(w) The petitioner has supplied and produced the copies of Whatsapp
messages and salary slips at the time of argument but it was not
considered by the learned court below while passing the Impugned
Order."
4. Thus the affidavit and the arguments of the revisionist are conflicting.
So far as, merit of the case is concerned, the court below has negated the
allegation of adultery after evaluating the materials brought on record. Thus,
the wife has reasonable reason for residing separately from the husband. As
per court below, wife has no independent source of income and as such she
needs maintenance as per the Mandate of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
At this stage, the learned counsel further stated that the wife was
earlier employed, but again this statement is useless.
5. Considering the above facts and the materials available on record, this
Court does not find any reasonable reason to interfere with the impugned
order. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application being Criminal
Revision No.316 of 2020 stands dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
