Ranjan Janghel vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 4123 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Cr. Rev. No.1143 of 2022
         Ranjan Janghel                                    .....   ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
         The State of Jharkhand and another                   .... .... Opposite Parties
                                       --------

         CORAM :          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
                                         ------
         For the Petitioner                : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate
         For the State                     : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, APP
         For the OP No.2                   : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate
                                          --------
08/01.11.2023          The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the

judgment dated 26.11.2021 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 104 of

2019 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur whereby the

petitioner has been directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per

month to the opposite party no.2.

2. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that Smt.

Deepa Kumari @ Ananya, wife had filed an application for maintenance

against her husband Ranjan Janghel under section 125 of Cr.PC with these

averments that she was married with petitioner according to hindu rites and

rituals on 22.03.2018 at town Jamshedpur, district East Singhbhum. After few

days of marriage her husband (petitioner) and other family members began to

torture her for demand of additional dowry of Rs.5 lacs and ultimately the

petitioner was ousted from the matrimonial house on 01st June 2018 and since

then the OP No.2 has been residing at her parental house. The OP No.2 has

no means to maintain herself while the petitioner her husband is doing

business in Gudri Market, Sonari, Jamshedpur by the name and style Cyber

Cafe and his earning is Rs.35,000/- per month and also earns Rs. 20,000/- per

month by supplying disc. connection in Sonari Area.

3. In view of the above prayed for the maintenance amount of

Rs.15,000/- per month.

4. The learned court below vide order dated 27.08.2019 deemed

the service of notice to the petitioner sufficient and proceeded the case

against him ex-parte.

5. On behalf of OP No.2 examined herself Deepa Kumari @

Ananya as PW1 and PW2 Brahmdev Singh, father of petitioner.

6. The learned court below after hearing the submissions made by

learned counsel for the petitioner passed the impugned judgment on

26.11.2021 whereby the maintenance application was allowed and the

petitioner was directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per

month from the date of application i.e. from April 2019 and the arrears of the

amount was also directed to be paid in 10 equal installments within 10 th

months.

7. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment the instant criminal

revision has been preferred on behalf of petitioner on the ground that the

impugned judgment passed by the court below was ex-parte. No opportunity

of hearing was given to him. In view of the violation of the natural justice

prayed to allow the criminal revision and to set aside the impugned judgment

passed by the court below.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material on record.

9. The impugned judgment passed by the court below is ex-parte.

Service of notice to the petitioner husband was deemed sufficient. Moreover

the petitioner herein in this criminal revision the husband has already paid the

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.09.2023 before the Family Court, Jamshedpur.

10. It appears also from the order no.06 dated 14.09.2023 the

learned counsel for both the parties agreed that if the petitioner deposit the

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of opposite party no.2 within two weeks

the case may be remanded to the court below to decide on merit.

11. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also

conceded that the respondent-wife has instructed him that she has received

the said amount from the court below.

12. In view of the consent being given by learned counsel for both

parties the case is being remanded. Accordingly, this criminal revision

deserved to be allowed.

13. Cr. Revision No. 1143 of 2022 is hereby allowed. The impugned

judgment passed by the court below is, hereby, set aside.

14. The case is remanded to the court below with the direction to

give an opportunity to the opposite party-husband who is petitioner herein to

file the written statement/objection and evidence as well and to decide the

maintenance application afresh giving opportunity of hearing to both parties.

15. Pending IA, if any, stands disposed of.

(Subhash Chand, J.) RKM