Sandhya Rani De (Dutta) vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 1574 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sandhya Rani De (Dutta) vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 February, 2024

Author: Navneet Kumar

Bench: Navneet Kumar

                                          1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       Cr. Rev. No. 63 of 2018
     Sandhya Rani De (Dutta)                   --- --- Petitioner

                                      Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand
     2.Amit Kumar Dutta                                    --- --- Opposite Parties
                                              .......

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate

15/16.02.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 assisted by the learned A.P.P.

2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned appellate court below i.e., Principal District & Sessions Judge, Pakur has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the opposite party no.2 by modifying/altering the order 14.06.2017 passed in P.C.R. Case No. 334 of 2014 corresponding to T.R. No. 1108 of 2017 by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur whereby the opposite party no.2 was directed to pay a monetary relief under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 @ Rs.7000/- per month to be paid to the complainant-petitioner herein. Further, opposite party no.2 was directed to pay a compensation under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to the complainant of a sum of Rs.50,000/-. However, the learned appellate court below, while partly allowing the order of the learned trial court reduced the amount of monetary relief from Rs. 7000/- per month to Rs. 5000/- per month to be paid to the son of the complainant- petitioner only and so far as the order of compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is concerned, the same has been set aside.

3. It is submitted that petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party no.2 and their marriage was solemnized on 13.06.2012 and out of the said wedlock a male child namely Sathyajeet Dutta was born, which is not in dispute. Further, it is submitted that after the marriage petitioner went to the sasural but after a few days she was subjected to torture and cruelty and therefore she was forced to leave her matrimonial house and to stay at her father's house where she gave birth

to her child Sathyajeet Dutta but the opposite party no.2 never looked after them nor came to see his son and never gave any money for their maintenance and therefore, the petitioner being the wife has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking protection order and residence order under Section 18 and 19 of the Act of 2005 and also monetary relief under Section 20 and compensation order under Section 22 of the Act of 2005 along with other reliefs.

4. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Court of C.J.M., Pakur by the order dated 14.06.2017 allowed the prayer of the petitioner under which the opposite party no.2 was directed to pay maintenance to the petitioner-wife @ Rs.7000/- per month from the date of passing of the said and order and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded as compensation to be paid by the opposite party no.2 to the petitioner under Section 22 of the Act of 2005 within a period of 3 months of passing of the said order. It is further submitted that being aggrieved with the said order dated 14.06.2017 passed by the learned C.J.M., Pakur, in P.C.R. Case No. 334 of 2014 corresponding to T.R. No. 1108 of 2017, the opposite party no.2 had preferred an appeal before the court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Pakur in Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 2017 wherein the learned appellate court below vide judgment dated 27.11.2017 has modified the order passed by the learned court of CJM, Pakur under which it was held that petitioner does not require any maintenance because she herself is earning being a Para Teacher, which is sufficient to maintain herself and therefore the order of maintenance @ Rs.7000/- awarded to the petitioner has been modified by directing the opposite party no. 2 to pay only a sum of Rs.5000/- per month to the son of the petitioner and not to the petitioner -wife. Further the appellate court below set aside the order of compensation of Rs.50,000/-, which was allowed by the CJM, Pakur by directing the opposite party no.2 to give it to the petitioner -wife. Further, it is submitted that petitioner being wife has challenged the order dated 27.11.2017 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 2017 by the instant criminal revision.

5. It has been submitted that the learned appellate court below has committed gross error in setting aside the order passed by the learned C.J.M. because there are ample evidence for causing domestic violence upon the petitioner wife who needs protection under Section 18 and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act ( hereinafter

referred to as the Act) and the learned C.J.M , Pakur has rightly passed the order under Section 20 and 22 of the Act after upholding the case of cruelty and torture by the opposite party no.2 to the petitioner under which a direction was given to pay maintenance @ Rs. 7000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of passing of the order, by the opposite party no.2 and a compensation of Rs.50,000/-was also awarded to be paid by the opposite party No.2 to the petitioner wife under Section 20 and 22 of the Act. Further, it has also been stated that from the depositions of opposite party no.2 himself, who has been examined as O.P.W No. 2, he has stated in his deposition in para 8 that his son could not recognize him at the time of recording of deposition of the opposite party no.2 before the learned court below. He has also admitted that he has not lodged any case for getting the custody of his son and from this version of the opposite party no.2, being the father of the son, it is submitted that it is glaring evidence of negligence and harassment caused to the wife- petitioner and their son when at the time of birth of the child and subsequent thereafter the opposite party no.2 being the father of the son was not taking care of the child or the petitioner wife and therefore, the order passed by the learned appellate court below is wholly wrong and fit to be set aside by restoring the order passed in the court of learned CJM, Pakur.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has strongly opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the learned appellate court has rightly passed the order under which the order of maintenance amount passed by the learned court of C.J.M., Pakur directing the opposite party no.2 to pay a sum of Rs. 7000/- per month to the petitioner wife has been modified and a sum of Rs.5000/- per month was directed to be paid to the son by the opposite party no.2 and further the learned appellate court below has rightly set aside the order to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner wife by the opposite party no.2. In that view of the matter, it is urged that there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court below on 27.11.2017 in Cr. Appeal No.21 of 2017 and this criminal revision is fit to be dismissed.

7. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case.

8. It is found from the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the materials available on record that it is an admitted position that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 are wife and husband and a son

Sathyajeet Dutta was born from their wedlock. It is also found that after solemnization of marriage between the parties on 13.06.2012, complainant- petitioner lived at her matrimonial house but after few days she started living at a residence gifted by her father at Kurthipara (Khadan Para). It has further been found that the petitioner is a Para Teacher in Kurapara Madhya Bidyalaya, Pakur and she is residing at Pakur on her own account because of the admitted fact that she had been working as a Para Teacher in Kurapara Madhya Bidyalaya, Pakur before her marriage and during the time of negotiation of the marriage, the complainant had expressed her opinion that she would continue even after marriage, as a Para Teacher and at that time opposite party no.2 was posted at Pakur Police Line being a Constable in Police.

9. In view of the admitted fact, it is found that the learned appellate court below has rightly passed the order by setting aside the order of maintenance of Rs.7000/- given to the petitioner wife to be paid by the opposite party No.2- husband because it is found from the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties that petitioner is capable of maintaining herself being a Para Teacher and her monthly income is about Rs. 7400/- and in that view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned appellate court below by which the order of maintenance passed by the court of learned C.J.M., Pakur has been modified and instead of awarding maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month to the wife, a sum of Rs. 5000/- has been awarded to their son Sathyajeet Dutta to be paid by the opposite party no.2- father. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the appellant court below under which opposite party no.2 has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month to the son of the petitioner and the opposite party no.2

10. So far as another part of the order passed by the learned appellate court below who has set aside the order of compensation of Rs.50,000/- passed by the learned C.J.M, Pakur under Section 22 of the Act to be paid to the petitioner wife by the opposite party no.2-husband, it is found from the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties and after going through the findings of both Courts below that the complainant- petitioner did not enjoy her matrimonial home soon after the marriage and she has been residing separately and she does not get any cooperation from the opposite party no.2. From the deposition of O.P. No. 2 it is found that he was not present at the time of birth of the child

and petitioner being the mother alone was maintaining and managing the entire affairs of the birth of the child. Further, statement of the opposite party no.2 at para 8 of his deposition is that he could not recognize his son. This version in itself is the cause of mental agony for the mother and also establishing the negligence and indifferent attitude of the opposite party no.2, who is the father of the child. This attitude of opposite party no.2 tantamounts to mental torture and emotional distress to the petitioner and the son who is born from the wedlock of O.P. No.2 husband and the petitioner wife. Further, it is found that the petitioner being wife has been suffering the rigor of the case since 2014 i.e., last 10 years and therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the order passed by the learned C.J.M., Pakur under which the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded to the petitioner under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In this view of the matter, this Court sets aside the order passed by the learned appellate court below i.e., Principal District & Sessions Judge, Pakur dated 27.11.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2017 on the point of award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the opposite party no.2 to the petitioner and restores the order passed by the learned C.J.M., Pakur dated 14.06.2017 in PCR Case No. 334 of 2014, under which an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded in favour of the petitioner to be given by the opposite party no.2 under Section 22 of the Act.

11. Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed as above.

12. Since the opposite party no.2 has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner wife, he shall pay the same within a period of 3 months from today, failing which, appropriate steps shall be taken by the learned court below.

(Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty