Salesh Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 719 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Salesh Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 January, 2024

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

                                1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Cr. Revision No. 939 of 2018
                        -----
Salesh Kumar Mahto                       ...... Petitioner
                        Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Manju Devi                            ...... Opp. Parties
                         -----
                      PRESENT
CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                       -----
For the Petitioner   : Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State        : None
For the O.P.No.2     : None
                     -----
                   JUDGMENT

CAV on:14.07.2023 Pronounced on:22/01/2024

This Criminal Revision No.939 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.06.2018 passed by Sri Banshi Dhar Tiwari, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamu at Daltonganj in Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2016 by which the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- per month to his wife i.e. the O.P. No.2-Manju Devi from the date of filing of application under section 125 Cr.P.C and it was also directed that the arrears of maintenance amount will be paid by the petitioner in ten monthly instalments.

2. The wife-O.P. No.2 has filed maintenance case bearing Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2016 under section 125 Cr.P.C on 19.02.2016 against the petitioner by claiming maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month.

3. The case of the O.P. No.2 (i.e. wife), in brief, is that the

marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 was solemnized as per the Hindu Customs and after marriage when she went to her matrimonial home where she lived properly for a few days. Thereafter her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, dewar etc. started demanding dowry of Rs.50,000/- in cash, Motorcycle and Television etc. and they used to assail and torture her mentally and physically for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. She has also stated that she has instituted a case against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, devar etc. for demanding dowry and torture her, which is pending for evidence. She has further stated that the petitioner is a Driver and is earning Rs.15,000/- per month and her husband has four (04) Bighas land and from which he is earning Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.One Lakh) per annum. However, the applicant-O.P. No.2 is to do household work due to paucity of money and she is not able to maintain herself and hence a sum of Rs.6,000/- may be allowed to her for the maintenance.

4. It transpires that even the petitioner has filed a show cause before the learned Court below on 19.08.2016 and has stated and denied his marriage with the O.P. No.2. The petitioner has specifically stated in his show cause that Manju Devi i.e. O.P. No.2 has not tied knot with the petitioner Salesh Kumar Mahto. He also pointed out that Manju Devi is married wife of one Jitendra Mahto of village Dhogadina, P.S-Paton, District-Palamu and her marriage is still in existence. In Para-3 of his show cause he has denied the allegations made in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, none appeared on behalf of the State and none appeared on behalf of the O.P. No.2.

6. Although notice was sent upon O.P.No.2 by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court by registered post vide order dated 06.12.2018 and she had appeared through her advocate, Mrs. Asmita Srivastava and which has been mentioned even in the office note dated 02.02.2019 although unserved copy of the registered cover has been returned by the office.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to consider the contradictory statements in the evidence of the witnesses produced on behalf of the O.P. No.2 (i.e. wife). It is submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly relied upon the evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-3 and P.W-4 namely Shiv Kumar Mahto, Ramesh Mahto, Ram Kumar Mahto and Manju Devi (applicant- O.P. No.2) respectively. It is submitted that the learned Court below has not relied upon the evidence of the witnesses namely Priyanka Kumari and Maina Devi, who have been examined as OPW-1 and OPW-2 respectively and who are the own daughter and mother of the petitioner and they had fully denied the marriage between the petitioner and the O.P. No.2. It is submitted that the learned Court below has not considered the evidence of the petitioner who was examined as OPW-3 in this case while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the O.P. No.2 is married with one Jitendra Mahto of village Dhogadina, P.S-Paton, District-Palamu and the said Jitendra Mahto has died five years ago. However, O.P. No.2 is in having habit of instituting false case of such types and she has filed such type of case against several other persons of her village only in order to extort money from them. It is submitted that the petitioner is not a Driver rather

he is a simple labour and he is doing labour work for his livelihood. It is submitted that the petitioner has no other agricultural land. It is submitted that O.P. NO.2 (i.e. wife) has instituted false case of dowry against him. It is submitted that the petitioner and his family members have been acquitted in the said dowry case vide judgment dated 14.06.2019 passed by the learned C.J.M, Palama at Daltonganj and hence the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed.

8. No one appeared on behalf of the State on repeated call.

9. No one had appeared on behalf of the O.P. No.2 on 18.05.2023, 19.06.2023 and also on 14.07.2023 and as such the order was reserved in this case.

10. It transpires that the O.P. No.2 (i.e. wife) has filed Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2016 against the petitioner on 19.02.2016 under section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month.

11. It transpires that the portioner has filed his show cause on 19.08.2016 and has stated and pointed out that the applicant- O.P.No.2 is not his wife and he has also pointed out that the O.P. No.2 is married to one Jitendra Mahto and her marriage is still in existence with said Jitendra Mahto.

12. It transpires that the O.P. No.2 (i.e. wife) has examined four witnesses in support of her case, who are as follows:-

       (i)    P.W-1 is Shiv Kumar Mahto,
       (ii)   P.W-2 is Ramesh Mahto,
       (iii) P.W-3 is Ram Kumar Mahto and

(iv) P.W-4 is Manju Devi the applicant-O.P. No.2 herself.

13. O.P. No.2 (i.e. wife) has proved the following documents

as the Exhibit:-

(i) Certified copy of the charge sheet of G.R. Case No.481/2010 (Parwa P.S. Case No.12/2010) submitted under section 498A of the IPC against the petitioner and his family members.

14. The petitioner (i.e. husband) in support of his case has got examined three (03) witnesses, who are as follows:-

        (i)    OPW-1 is Priyanka Kumari,
        (ii)   OPW-2 is Maina Devi and

(iii) OPW-3 is Salesh Kumar Mahto (i.e. the petitioner)

15. It transpires that thereafter the learned Court below has passed the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to Manju Devi-O.P. No.2 from the date of filing of the application and also directed the petitioner to pay arrears of maintenance amount in ten instalments, hence this Criminal Revision Application.

16. It transpires from the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is like a non-speaking order.

It transpires from the impugned order that the learned Court below has discussed the evidence of both the sides in paragraph 5 to 12 and thereafter in one single paragraph no.13 without appreciating the evidence of the parties, the learned Court below has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,000/- per month by merely relying upon the certified copy of the charge sheet of G.R. Case No.481/2010 (Parwa P.S. Case No.12/2010) and has observed that the petitioner has failed to file any documentary evidence.

17. Thus, the learned Court below has made out grave illegality by allowing the application filed under Section 125

Cr.P.C by the applicant-O.P.No.2 against the petitioner and the impugned judgment passed by the leaned Court below is fit to be set aside on this ground alone.

However, as the O.P. No.2 has not appeared at the time of argument despite giving several opportunities and as such the appreciation of the evidence is required to be done.

18. It transpires from the record that the petitioner has also filed supplementary affidavit on 31.07.2019 and has enclosed the photo copy of the certified copy of the judgment dated 14.06.2019 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Choudhary, the then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamu at Daltonganj in G.R.No.481/2010 (T.R. No.870/2019).

19. From perusal of the said judgment dated 14.06.2019 passed in G.R.No.481/2010 (T.R. No.870/2019), it transpires that the petitioner Salesh Kumr Mahto, his father Rajendra Mahto, his mother Maina Devi and brother Lalan Mahto have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

20. It transpires from the said judgment dated 14.06.2019 that apart from making other observations, the learned Court below has also held that the informant has admitted her second marriage with this petitioner and she was not able to tell even the name of her first husband.

21. Although the finding of the case is not binding in a civil case. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has denied his marriage with the O.P. No.2-Manju Devi and as such this fact is also necessary for testing the merits of this maintenance case as the O.P. No.2 was not even able to tell the name of her first husband before the learned Court below i.e. the C.J.M, Palamu in

G.R.No.481/2010 (T.R. No.870/2019) and has taken the plea that she was married with this petitioner and this was her second marriage.

22. So far as oral evidence is concerned, P.W-1-Shiv Kumar Mahto, who is the uncle of the O.P. No.2 has stated during his evidence that the marriage between the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 was solemnized 11 years ago as per Hindu Customs and after marriage the applicant went to her matrimonial home and she remained there properly for around four years. Thereafter her in-law's members including her husband started ill-treating her and demanding Rs.50,000/- cash, Motorcycle and Television and started assailing the applicant and tortured her mentally and physically. Thereafter the applicant-O.P. No.2 has instituted a case against this occurrence which is pending. He has further stated that the husband of Manju Devi i.e. the petitioner is working as a Driver and is earning Rs.15,000/- per month and also got substantial land and from which he is earning rupees approx One Lakh annually. However, the applicant-Manju Devi is not able to maintain herself and hence she requires Rs.6,000/- per month for her maintenance from the husband.

23. During cross-examination, he has admitted that Manju Devi-O.P. No.2 is daughter of his Cousin brother in-law and he had gone to the house of Salesh Kumar Mahto i.e. the petitioner at the time of marriage and thereafter he had never gone there. He has also stated that Manju Devi-O.P. No.2 is a healthy and fit woman and also helps in doing household works and agricultural works but he is not aware with the income of Manju Devi from the agriculture but he had seen her doing work in the field, however, she is not able to maintain herself. He also stated that the petitioner is a Truck Driver but he does not know the name of

the Owner of the Truck.

He further admitted during his cross-examination that Manju Devi-O.P.No.2 was earlier married with one Jitendra Mahto but he is not aware as to whether Manju Devi-O.P. No.2 has taken divorce from said Jitendra Mahto or not. He further admitted during his evidence that first husband to Manju Devi is still alive. The witness i.e. P.W-1 has stated that Manju Devi had performed second marriage with Jitendra Mahto because first wife of Jitendra Mahto, who was daughter of one Naresh Mahto had died and hence after her death, Jitendra Mahto had performed second marriage. He had denied the suggestion that Manju Devi is living with her first husband and hence she does not want to live with this petitioner. He has also denied the suggestion that Manju Devi has left the petitioner Salesh Kumar Mahto on his own.

24. Thus from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-1, it is evident that though he has tried to support the case of O.P. No.2-Manjut Devi during his examination in-chief but during his cross- examination it is evident that he has admitted the marriage of Manju Devi was performed with one Jitendra Mahto. He has shown ignorance that Manju Devi has taken divorce from Jitendra Mahto or not. However, he on his own tried to suggest that both i.e. Manju Devi and Salesh Kumar Mahto i.e. the petitioner have performed marriage twice. But, again admitted subsequently that Jitendra Mahto has performed marriage with Manju Devi i.e. O.P. No.2 after death of his first wife.

Thus, the evidence of P.W-1 does not support the case of the O.P. No.2 rather it supports the case of the petitioner that Manju Devi has performed marriage earlier with said Jitendra Mahto.

25. P.W-2 is Ramesh Mahto, who is the father of the O.P.

No.2 and has stated during his evidence that the marriage that the marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 was performed eleven (11) years ago as per Hindu Customs and after marriage his daughter remained for around three years but thereafter the opposite party i.e. the petitioner and his family members started demanding Rs.50,000/- cash, one Motorcycle and Television and due to non-fulfillment of said dowry demand she has been ousted after assaulting her by her in-laws members from her matrimonial home. Thereafter her daughter has instituted a case of dowry and torture against her in-laws members. He has further stated that the petitioner is a Driver by profession and is earning Rs.15,000/- per month and has also got four Bighas of land and from which he earns Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lakh) per annum. However, his daughter has no source of income and she is not able to maintain herself and as such her daughter requires Rs.6,000/- for her maintenance.

26. Thus, from the examination-in-chief of the P.W-2, it is evident that he is failed to state as to whether his daughter i.e. O.P. No.2 (examined as P.W-4) is living in her Maike with him. Therefore, even the examination-in-chief of P.W-2 does not support the case of O.P. No.2.

27. During cross-examination, P.W-2 i.e. father of the O.P. No.2 has stated that Manju Devi was firstly married with Jitendra Mahto in the year 2006 while she was around twenty years and the marriage was solemnized on 15.02.2006. Later on, he says that Manju Devi has performed only one marriage with this petitioner Salesh Kumar Mahto.

28. During further cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot file any Invitation Card of marriage of his daughter. He has also admitted and stated that he does not remember the date,

day and year of his own marriage and he does not know even his own date of birth. P.W-2 has further stated that one Pandit Ramchandra Giri has performed marriage of his daughter but he again stated that marriage of his daughter was performed by Bhageshwar Thakur who has died. He has further stated that he has not stated about the demand of Motorcycle. He has further denied the marriage of his daughter with Jitendra Mahto and stated that as there was no marriage between his daughter and Jitendra Mahto and hence there is no question of divorce. Thereafter, he has stated that his daughter is living in her Naihar since last eight years and in the meantime, he has not instituted any other case. He has further stated that he does not remember the boundary of the house of the petitioner-Salesh Kumar Mahto. He has further stated that he has no land and is doing Batai work on the agriculture land and he is Bataidar. He has further admitted that he cannot give any evidence of marriage of her daughter Manju Devi with the petitioner-Salesh Kumar Mahto. He also admitted that he had not seen the land of the petitioner. He has denied the suggestion for instituting false case for blackmailing the petitioner.

29. During Court's question, P.W-2 has further stated that he does not remember the day, date and year of living of his daughter in her Maike. He also stated that he does not remember the case number instituted by his daughter and does not remember the name of the Court. However, he has stated that his son-in-law is driving Ten Wheels Vehicle but he cannot say its number. Thus, the learned Principal Judge has noticed during evidence that P.W- 2, has resiled his earlier statement and has stated that his daughter Manju Devi is living in her Naihar since the year 2010.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-2 i.e. the father of the O.P. No.2, it is evident that his evidence is full of contradictions and his evidence is contradicted from the evidence of P.W-1 because P.W-1 has stated that Manju Devi was married later on with one Jitendra Mahto which was her second marriage but P.W-2 has stated that Manju Devi has never married with Jitendra Mahto.

During his evidence he could not say the date and time of living of his daughter in her Maike. But, subsequently he has changed his version and stated that she is living in her Maike since 2010 whereas he himself has stated earlier during his cross- examination that Manju Devi was firstly remarried to Jitendra Mahto in the year 2006 (i.e. on 15.02.2006).

Thus, the evidence of P.W-2 is full of concoctions and contradictions and hence the evidence of P.W-2 is not reliable and he has also resiled from his earlier statements before the learned Court below which has been noticed also by the Court's question. Thus, P.W-2 is not reliable.

30. P.W-3 is Ram Kumar Mahto who has stated during his evidence that marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 was solemnized eleven (11) years ago and has stated the same facts as stated by P.W-1 and hence the same is not being repeated here for the sake of repetition.

31. During his cross-examination, he has stated and admitted that Manju Devi is elder sister of his wife and his elder sister in- law in relation. He has shown ignorance that Manju Devi was earlier married with one Jitendra Mahto, son of Bipat, resident of village- Dhogadina, P.S-Paton, District-Palamu. He has shown ignorance as to whether the first marriage of Manju Devi-O.P. No.2 is in existence or not. However, he has stated that Manju

Devi-O.P.No.2 was married with Salesh Kumar Mahto (i.e. the petitioner) in the year 2006 but he does not remember the date, day and year. However, he has admitted that he was married in the year 2005. He has also shown ignorance as to who got performed the marriage of Manju Devi (i.e. O.P. No.2) and he does not know of full name of Pandit.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-3, it is evident that he is also an interested witness and he has shown ignorance about marriage of Manju Devi-O.P. No.2 and Jitendra Mahto and which has been admitted by P.W-1 namely Shiv Kumar Mahto and which was also admitted by P.W-2 i.e. the father of Manju Devi during his evidence but later on he has resiled. However, the evidence of P.W-3 is contradicted from his own evidence in view of the fact that he admitted to have married with the younger sister of Manju Devi (i.e. O.P. No.2) in the year 2005 whereas marriage of Manju Devi was said to be performed with the petitioner on 15.02.2006 which does not appear to be credible because marriage of his younger sister cannot be performed earlier if his elder sister is unmarried. He has stated in his evidence that petitioner is running Dumper in Orrisa and thus the evidence of P.W-3 is also not reliable.

32. P.W-4 is Manju Devi who is the applicant herself and has stated during her evidence that her marriage with the petitioner was performed eleven (11) years ago and after marriage she went to her matrimonial home where she remained properly for around two years. Thereafter her husband and in-law members started demanding Rs.50,000/- cash and one Motorcycle and which could not be fulfilled by her parents and thereafter the petitioner and his family members started assailing and misbehaving and for which she has instituted a case of dowry and torture. She has stated that

her husband is running Big Vehicle (Bus) and is earning Rs.15,000/- per month and the petitioner has got four Bighas land and is also earning Rs.1,00,000/- from the same but her husband is not maintaining her and she is not able to maintain herself and hence she requires Rs.6,000/- per month.

33. During cross-examination, she has denied the existence of village Dhogadina. She has denied the suggestion that she was married with Jitendra Mahto and the said marriage is still in existence and who is resident of village Dhogadina. She has further stated that when she went to the house of petitioner then she had seen one small girl namely Priyanka Kumari who is the daughter of the petitioner. She could not say her age when she was married with this petitioner. She has further admitted that when she arrived in the house of the petitioner then she had seen there his wife and daughter and then she had discussed with the villagers Kamlesh Mahto, Vijay Mahto and Vanradhan Mahto. During cross-examination she has admitted that she does not remember the year and month of her marriage with the petitioner Salesh and she is not aware as to who got her marriage performed. She has further stated that her husband is running a Bus.

34. During Court's question she has stated that she went to the house of the petitioner and she had seen her daughter, but at that time the wife of Salesh Mahto had died. She has instituted a case of dowry demand against her husband in village Parwa but she does not remember the name and case number and does not know in which Court, the said case is running. She has further stated that her husband had given her Rs.15,000/- in her hand which was her salary and her husband had given the amount ten years ago but she does not remember the month. She has further stated that presently she is living in her Naihar since last ten years.

35. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-4-Manju Devi, it is evident that she has tried to support her case by showing marriage with this petitioner. But during cross examination in her evidence, she has stated to have seen even the wife and daughter of the petitioner which is completely wrong. She also could not say the year, date and month of the marriage. She has further stated that her husband is driving Bus whereas P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-3 namely Shiv Kumar Mahto, Ramesh Mahto and Ram Kumar Mahto have stated that the petitioner is running a Truck and particularly P.W-3 has stated that petitioner is running Dumpher in Orissa. However, P.W-4 could not say as to where and on which place the petitioner is driving the Bus. She also failed to state the case number and name of the Court below at Daltonganj district where her case of dowry demand was pending. She has claimed that she is living in her Naihar for ten years on the date of giving her evidence on 17.02.2017. Thus, the evidence of P.W-4 is also not reliable.

36. Apart from this, it is evident that the evidence of P.W-4 is also not corroborated from the evidence of P.W-1, who has stated and contradicted the evidence of P.W-4 that P.W-4-Manju Devi has married with one Jitendra Mahto and her marriage was also admitted by her father who was examined as P.W-2. Mere denial of suggestion of her marriage with Jitendra Mahto during her cross-examination, is not sufficient to prove her claim of maintenance against the petitioner.

37. So far as the evidence of the petitioner is concerned, OPW-1 is Priyanka Kumari, the daughter of the petitioner. This witness was tested by the learned Court below and finding her minor, the court below has enquired about her date of birth and the class she was reading, upon which she stated that she is student of

Class-IX. After testing the witness, the court below has examined her as OPW-1.

OPW-1 has stated that the petitioner Salesh Kumar Mahto is her father and he was married with her mother Pratima Devi 15 years ago, who is no more. She has also stated that Manju Devi has instituted a case against her father whom she does not know and she has not seen Manju Devi in her house. She has also stated that her father is a Labour and Manju Devi has instituted a false case against her father.

During cross-examination, she has stated that her father has not performed second marriage with any one and her father has never lived with Manju Devi. Although she has stated that her father had not gone to Jail but the same is not relevant as she is a minor daughter and has stated that her father is a Labour who is doing work outside. Although she has stated that her father has got some agriculture land but the same is also not relevant for the present as she is a minor girl. She has denied the suggestion that her father has ousted Manju Devi from his house and also denied the suggestion that she is giving false evidence.

As OPW-1 is a minor girl aged about around 15 years on the date of her evidence however she has fully supported the case of her father i.e. the petitioner.

38. OPW-2 is Maina Devi, who is the mother of the petitioner and has stated during her evidence that the petitioner has never married with Manju Devi. She has stated that her son had married with one Pratima Devi 25 years ago but said Pratima Devi died living behind one daughter Priyanka. She has further stated that Manju Devi has been married with one Jitendra Mahto and Jitendera is resident of village Dhogadina, P.S-Paton and he is still alive and even the father in-law of Manju Devi is still alive and

Manju Devi has never come to her house. She has further stated that Manju Devi has earlier instituted a case against her second husband and has got the case compromised after taking money and she is also demanding money from them and on their reluctance to pay the amount she has instituted the present case against her son.

During cross-examination, she has stated that the applicant Manju Devi (i.e. O.P.NO.2) has instituted a case of dowry and torture against her also. She has also stated that she is aware of Manju Devi as her sister is married in her village. She also specifically stated that Manju Devi i.e. O.P. No.2 has never remained in her house for a single day. She has also stated that Pratima Devi, first wife of her son Salesh Kumar Mahto has died five years ago. She has also stated that petitioner is doing Labour work outside and her son is not a Driver. She has also stated that she has got no agricultural land and she has not got a single Katha of land and hence there is no question of earning rupees one lakh from her agricultural land. She has denied the suggestion for ousting Manju Devi from her matrimonial home.

39. During Court's question, she has stated that she is aged around 60 years and her husband is aged around 70 years and her son Salesh Mahto is aged around 25 years. Though she has stated that the marriage of her son was performed with Pratima Devi eight years ago and at that time Salesh Mahto was aged around 15 years. However, this evidence is not relevant as OPW-2 (i.e. mother of the petitioner) is a rustic lady.

However, during Court's question, OPW-2 has again asserted that Jitendra Mahto has performed marriage with Manju Devi (i.e. O.P.No.2) 20-25 years ago. She has also stated that the petitioner is working as a Labour in Ambikapur.

Thus, from the evidence of OPW-2, it is evident that she has supported the case of the petitioner and has asserted that the applicant (O.P.No.2) has married with one Jitendra Mahto.

40. OPW-3 is the petitioner Salesh Kumar Mahto himself. During evidence he has stated that he is doing work of Labour and is earning Rs.150/- per day. He has stated and asserted that first marriage of Manju Devi i.e. O.P. No.2 was performed with one Jitendra Ram who is resident of Paton P.S and said Jitendra Ram is still alive and there is no divorce between Manju Devi and Salesh Kumar (it appears to be a typographical error as instead of Jitendra Ram, Salesh Kumar has been typed by the deposition typist). This witness i.e. OPW-3 has denied his marriage with Manju Devi. He has also stated that his first wife has died. He has also stated that earlier also Manju Devi (i.e. O.P. No.2) has instituted such case against one another person and claimed to her wife and had taken money. He has also stated that she has instituted two case in the Police Station and has got his case compromised after taking money. He has further stated and asserted that he has not performed marriage with O.P. No.2 (i.e. Manju Devi) and Manju Devi has falsely instituted case upon him for extorting the money.

During cross-examination, he has stated that he has performed marriage 20 years ago but does not remember the day and date. However, he has stated that his daughter is aged around 13 years and his first wife Pratima Devi had Died 12-13 years ago. However, he had not attended the marriage of Manju Devi with Jitendra Ram. He has also admitted that he has also gone to jail in the case instituted by Manju Devi against him for demanding dowry but the said case is false. However, he has also stated that he cannot say the name of the person and the date, against whom Manju Devi had instituted case. He has denied the suggestion to be

working as a Driver outside and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.

41. Thus, from the evidence of OPW-3 it would appear that he has denied his marriage with the O.P. NO.2 (i.e. Manju Devi) and has stated during his evidence that Manju Devi (O.P No.2) was married with one Jitendra Mahto and has also described his place of residence and has that marriage between Manju Devi and Jitendra Ram is still in existence. However, this witness has not been confronted on the question of divorce between Jitendra Ram and Manju Devi (O.P. No.2) for not performing the marriage between Jitendra Ram and Manju Devi. Therefore, evidence of OPW-3 also shows that relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner Salesh Kumar Mahto and Manju Devi (i.e. O.P. No.2) is disputed and marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 is not proved.

42. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, it is clear that there is no proof of marriage between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 and the O.P. No.2 is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner.

43. It further transpires as stated above that the learned Court below i.e. Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamu at Daltonganj has allowed the maintenance case in favour of the applicant-O.P. No.2 in paragraph no.13 and has observed that the applicant (i.e. O.P. No.2) Manju Devi has produced the certified copy of the dowry case marked as Exhibit-1. However, it is evident from Annexure-1 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner and his family members have already been acquitted by the Court of the learned C.J.M, Palamu at Daltonganj vide judgment dated 14.06.2019 in G.R.No.481/2010 (T.R. No.870/2019).

44. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds

that the learned Court below has committed illegality by allowing the claim of the O.P. No.2-Manju Devi against this petitioner without discussing the materials available on record and without scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-4.

45. Thus, the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamu at Daltonganj in Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2016 by which the learned Court below has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2000/- per month to the O.P. No.2 is set aside.

Accordingly, Cr. Revision No.939 of 2018 is allowed and stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/

N.A.F.R.