Jaga Lakra vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 780 Jhar

                                          -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.1233 of 2019
                            With
                   I.A. No.9438 of 2019

    Jaga Lakra                                         ......       Petitioner
                                     Versus

    1.       The State of Jharkhand
    2.       Monica Toppo                              ......    Opp. Parties
                                     ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

    For the Petitioner               : Mr. S. K. Singh, Advocate
    For the State                    : A.P.P
                                     ---------

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

---------

                   nd
04/Dated: 02            March, 2022

1. Heard Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.P.P.

2. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 28.05.2018, passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C by the court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No.184 of 2014, whereby the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) per month in favour of the wife/ O.P. No.02 has been awarded.

I.A. No.9438 of 2019 has been filed for condoning the delay of 382 days in preferring the present revision application. The ground of illness has been taken for the delay in filing the revision application.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage is not in dispute. The husband has raised the point that the wife has left the matrimonial home without any rhyme and reason and further she runs a Beauty Parlour and from this job she earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and as such she is not entitled for the maintenance. It further appears that both the parties have produced oral witnesses. The oral witnesses from the side of husband have stated that the claimant-wife earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month by running a

Beauty Parlour and the husband is a Railway employee. The allegation has been made by the wife that she has been harassed due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. It is the second marriage of both the parties. The husband was a widower and the wife was a widow.

Considering the entire materials on record and after interacting with the parties, the court below has awarded meager amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance.

4. In view of the reasons assigned by the court below, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application is, hereby, dismissed.

5. However, it is open for the revisionist to approach the court below under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.

6. I.A. No.9438 of 2019 stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-