Pradeep Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1977 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                         Cr.M.P No. 891 of 2004
                                                ------

                Pradeep Yadav                                            .... .... Petitioner(s).
                                                 Versus
                1. State of Jharkhand
                2. Pramila Devi                                    .... .... Respondent(s)
                                                   ------
                CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                                                   ------

                For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
               For the State           : Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, APP

         16/08.05.2023
                Heard the parties.

2. In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioner challenges the grant of maintenance of Rs.500/- to Pramila Devi and Rs.300/- to her son per month.

3. Pramila Devi filed an application for grant of maintenance which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 14 of 1999 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa. After following all the procedures and thereafter based on the evidence led by the parties, the trial court awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.500/- to Pramila Devi and Rs.300/- for her child per month. The said order was challenged in the revision application. The revisional court after considering all the aspects was pleased to dismiss the revision application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there exist no relationship of husband and wife between the parties, thus, the order passed by both the courts is absolutely bad. He submits that the lady was not known to this petitioner and with ulterior motive the maintenance case was filed which was entertained and thereafter even allowed. This is a grave illegality committed by both the courts.

5. The issue which the petitioner is trying to raise in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is whether the petitioner is the legally wedded husband of Pramila Devi or not. This issue cannot be decided by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. Moreover, there is a concurrent judgment of two courts i.e Judicial Magistrate & Revisional Court that the petitioner is the husband of Pramila Devi and he is not maintaining her. The entire issue involves question of facts which has already been settled by the concurrent judgement of both Trial Court and the Revisional Court.

6. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- per month is a meagre amount which needs no interference.

7. Considering the aforesaid fact, I do not find any merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN , J) anjali/cp2