Jharkhand High Court
Sakti Paswan @ Shakti Paswan @ Shakti ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 858 of 2024
Sakti Paswan @ Shakti Paswan @ Shakti Kumar aged about 37 years,
son of late Ramdeo Paswan, resident of village-New Bishunpur, P.O.
B. Ploytechnic, P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Aashma Kumari, aged about 26 years, wife of Shakti Paswan @
Sakti Paswan @ Shakti Kumar daughter of Mathura Paswan, resident
of Putki 13 No.- P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Putki, District-Dhanbad
... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
---
02/01.08.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated
09.05.2024 passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No. 82 of 2023
whereby the learned Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay
Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2. The maintenance
amount has been directed to be paid from the date of application i.e.
from 01.02.2023.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has
challenged this order only with respect to the quantum of
maintenance. He has further submitted that the reason for refusal to
keep his wife was that she had at one point of time attacked his mother
and also made an attempt to commit suicide. He has also submitted
that a case of divorce is going on between the parties at the instance of
the petitioner and a case on account of torture with regard to dowry
demand has also been filed by the wife of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner also has to maintain
his mother which is required to be considered. He has submitted that
no such specific plea has been taken before the court concerned but
specific statement to that effect has been made in the revision petition.
5. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has
been working under a contractor of Royal Enterprises at Digwadih
Power Sub-Station at Dhanbad as helper and he claimed that he was
earning Rs. 8400/- per month. The learned counsel has submitted that
the order impugned does not suggest whether the required affidavit in
terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rajnish vs. Neha was filed or not and he also submits that he has
no instruction as to whether such affidavit was filed by the petitioner
or not. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order fixing
maintenance to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- is excessive and therefore it
calls for interference. He has also submitted that the petitioner has
been paying interim maintenance to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- per
month. He has relied upon an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court dated 28.06.2024 passed in Cr. Revision No. 362 of 2022
wherein the quantum of maintenance was reduced to Rs. 2,000/- for
the wife and therefore it is submitted that in the present case also the
quantum of maintenance be reduced to Rs. 2,000/-.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after
going through the impugned order this court finds that there is no
dispute that the opposite party No. 2 is the wife of the petitioner and
the petitioner has himself argued not only before the court concerned
but also before this court that the petitioner is not ready to keep the
wife on account of certain alleged incident with regard to his mother
and has also alleged that the wife also tried to commit suicide. The
parties are in litigating terms. Divorce case has been filed by the
petitioner and the criminal case in connection with dowry demand and
torture has been filed by the wife which appears not only from the
impugned order but also from the arguments advanced on behalf of
the petitioner. So far as filing of affidavit in connection with assets
and liabilities in terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha in Appeal No. 730 of 2020
is concerned, paragraph 9 of the impugned orders reveals that the
affidavit was filed by the applicant and in the said paragraph itself it
has been recorded that respondent had admitted to the extent that he
was having his monthly income of Rs. 7000-8000. Paragraph No. 9
also reveals that the applicant claimed that the petitioner having
income of Rs. 50,000/- per month and the petitioner admitted his
income @ Rs. 8000 per month. However, in his response in the show
cause the petitioner has clearly stated that he was working under a
contractor of Royal Enterprises at Digwadih Power Sub-station as
helper and he claimed to have been earning an amount of Rs. 8400/-
per month. The learned counsel has himself submitted that he has no
instruction as to whether the petitioner had filed his affidavit in terms
of Rajnish vs. Neha or not, but the impugned order clearly reflects
that the opportunity to file the affidavit was given in as much as at
least the applicant had filed such an affidavit. It further appears that
the petitioner also appears to have filed an affidavit because paragraph
9 indicates that he claimed that his monthly income was Rs. 7,000/-
per month. This court further finds from the impugned order and also
from the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that before
the court concerned, the petitioner did not take a plea regarding
dependency of his mother. A new plea before this Court in revisional
jurisdiction which cannot be entertained.
7. So far as the order dated 28.06.2024 in Cr. Revision No. 362 of
2024 is concerned, this court finds that the impugned order of
maintenance in the said case was granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/-
for the wife and Rs. 1,000/- for each child. Consequently, the total
quantum of maintenance was Rs. 6,000/- per month. The petitioner in
the said case claimed to be a daily wage earner at Rs. 3,00/- per day
and taking that into consideration his monthly income was worked out
to be Rs. 7,500. The court took into consideration the seasonal nature
of work being performed by the petitioner of the case and recorded
that the quantum of maintenance was excessive and unrealistic and
reduced the maintenance in favour of the wife to Rs. 2,000/- and
refused to interfere with the amount of maintenance to the minor
children. Consequently, the quantum of maintenance with respect to
wife and children was fixed to a total of Rs. 5,000/- that too for a
seasonal worker. In the present case the total maintenance has been
fixed only at Rs.4000/- per month. Accordingly, the said order passed
by this court in Cr. Revision No. 362 of 2024 does not help the
petitioner in any manner.
8. In the present case, engagement of the petitioner as per the case
of the petitioner himself was with a contractor of Royal Enterprises at
Digwadih Power Station as helper and he claimed to have been
earning Rs. 8400/- per month in his show cause and further the
petitioner did not take a plea before the court concerned that he has a
dependent mother. This court is not inclined to entertain a new plea
before this court and is also of the considered view that otherwise also
the impugned order does not call for any interference as only a meagre
amount of maintenance has been fixed for the wife. Considering the
totality of circumstances , this court is of the view that the quantum of
maintenance as fixed by the learned court amounting to Rs. 4,000/- to
the opposite party No. 2 cannot be said to be excessive. There is no
illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the impugned order
calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this
petition is dismissed.
9. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
10. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through
FAX.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
