Vimlesh Chandravanshi @ Bimlesh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 667 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  Cr. Rev. No. 1433 of 2019
               Vimlesh Chandravanshi @ Bimlesh Ram             ...           ... Petitioner
                                      Versus
              1. The State of Jharkhand
              2. Kajal Devi                                    ...            ... Opp. Parties
                                                 ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

               For the Petitioner         : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Advocate
               For the State              : Mr. N.K. Gaunjhu, 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.

---

I.A. No.88 of 2020

04/23.02.2022: This interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 78 days in filing present criminal revision.

In view of the statements made in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing criminal revision, is hereby, condoned.

The aforesaid interlocutory application stands allowed. Cr. Rev. No. 1433 of 2019 Present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist-husband against the judgment dated 03.05.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original (Maintenance) Case No.31 of 2018 by which application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by Opp. Party No.2, has been allowed by directing the revisionist to give Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage between the parties is not in dispute. The wife has alleged harassment due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. Altogether three witnesses have been examined from the side of the wife and four witnesses have been examined from the side of the husband. Considering the materials brought on record, the court below has given finding that the wife is unable to maintain herself and is entitled for maintenance and considering the same, meagre amount has been awarded. So much stress has been given by the husband that the wife has no reason for not staying with him and she has made allegation that the husband is suffering from Leprosy but the at the same time wife has also alleged harassment due to non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry.

Considering the above facts and the fact that the court below has an opportunity to interact with the parties, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, it is hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Ravi/-