Umesh Oraon @ Umesh Kachhap vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1243 Jhar

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No. 1211 of 2021
                  Umesh Oraon @ Umesh Kachhap, aged about 46 years, son of Ropna
                  Oraon, resident of Village Khokma Toli Airport Road, P.O. Hatia, P.S.
                  Doranda, Dist. Ranchi-834003                      ... Petitioner
                                           -Versus-
             1.   The State of Jharkhand
             2.   Sarita Kachhap, D/o Shahdeo Kachhap, wife of Umesh Oraon, resident
                  of Village Simerbera, P.O. Jonha, P.S. Angara, District- Ranchi, at
                  present residing at village Marang, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District- Ranchi
                                                                    ... Opposite Parties
                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Nath, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P. For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate

-----

05/29.03.2022. Heard Mr. Ravindra Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.D.

Agrawal, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey,

learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding against

the petitioner in Original Maintenance Case No.236/2019 passed by the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi.

3. There is no order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

Ranchi, which is under challenge in this petition. On 10.08.2021, on the

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that custom of Sarna is

required to be considered in this case as Hindu Marriage Act is not

applicable in this case, so far as the petitioner is concerned and that is why,

notices were issued. Pursuant to that, opposite party no.2 has appeared.

4. Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2

submits that this issue has already been settled in view of the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha,

reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.

5. Paragraphs 15 and 32 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:

"15. The legislations which have been framed on the issue of maintenance are the Special Marriage Act, 1954 ("SMA"), Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("the DV Act") which provide a statutory remedy to women, irrespective of the religious community to which they belong, apart from the personal laws applicable to various religious communities.

xxx xxx xxx

32. Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for maintenance of wife, children and parents in a summary proceeding. Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC may be claimed by a person irrespective of the religious community to which they belong. The purpose and object of Section 125 CrPC is to provide immediate relief to an applicant. An application under Section 125 CrPC is predicated on two conditions : (i) the husband has sufficient means; and

(ii) "neglects" to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. In such a case, the husband may be directed by the Magistrate to pay such monthly sum to the wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors."

6. In view of the above facts and considering the judgment passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and particularly considering that there is no

order, which is under challenge in this case and only institution of the case

is under challenge, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.

8. Consequently, I.A. No.872 of 2022 also stands dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/