Jharkhand High Court
Yogesh Kumar Das @ Yogesh Kumar Aged ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 March, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 524 of 2022
Yogesh Kumar Das @ Yogesh Kumar aged about - 31 years son
of Vimal Prasad Gupta, resident of village - Sahibganj Belhar
Road, P.O. - Mathura, P.S. - Belhar, District - Banka (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Dolly Devi, aged about 22 years, wife of Yogesh Kumar Das, D/o
Sunil Kumar Das, resident of presently resided at Chowkbazar,
Sahibganj, P.O. - Sahibganj, P.S. - Sahibganj, District - Sahibganj
(Jharkhand) ... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
---
11/01.03.2024 This criminal revision has been filed for the following relief:
"That the instant application is directed against judgment
dated 10.03.2022 passed in Original Maintenance Case
No.60 of 2020 by Sri Shree Prakash Dubey Principal Judge
Family Court, Sahibganj whereby he has been pleased direct
the petitioner to pay a some of Rupees five thousand per
month to wife/ o.p No.2 and Rupees two thousand per month
to the son of o.p. No.-1 as maintenance allowance from the
date of filing of the case and also directed to pay the arrear
amount within six month from today without considering the
material on record."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the
impugned order passed by the learned Family Court has submitted
that, as recorded in the impugned order in paragraph 3, the petitioner
was debarred from filing the show cause vide order dated 04.12.2021.
The learned counsel submits that under such circumstances he could
not bring on record the order passed in the case of restitution of
conjugal rights dated 20.02.2020 though the same was decreed ex
parte.
3. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that no steps were
taken by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 04.12.2021, by
which the petitioner was debarred. The petitioner neither filed any
petition for recall of the order dated 04.12.2021 nor challenged the
same before any higher court.
4. The learned counsel has also submitted that there are numerous
cases pending between the parties, including one criminal case filed
by the opposite party No. 2 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code. He has also submitted that the petitioner does not have any
source of livelihood and, therefore, the impugned order calls by
interference.
5. Learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party while opposing
the prayer has submitted that the marriage is not in dispute and it is
also not in dispute that a child was born out of the wedlock.
6. He submitted that the amount of compensation which has been
awarded to the opposite party is a meagre amount of Rs.5000/- for
wife and Rs.2000/- for the child. The fact that there is a criminal case
pending against the petitioner for alleged offence under section 498A
of Indian Penal Code is also not in dispute.
7. The learned counsel has also submitted that though the
petitioner was debarred from filing the show cause, but at the same
time, the witnesses produced by the opposite party no. 2 who had
testified that the petitioner runs a furniture shop and earns Rs.50,000
to 60,000 per month were duly cross-examined by the petitioner. The
learned counsel has also submitted that so far as quantum of
compensation is concerned, the same was also rightly considered as
the opposite party no. 2 did not bring any documentary evidence with
regard to the income of the present petitioner.
8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds
that the impugned order reflects that in spite of service of notice, the
petitioner did not file his show cause and ultimately, he was debarred
from filing the show cause vide order dated 04.12.2021. It further
reveals that the said order was never challenged by the petitioner
before any court of law. The petitioner had participated in the
proceedings inasmuch as the witnesses produced by the wife before
the learned court, were also cross-examined by the petitioner. It
further appears that the wife had claimed that the petitioner had
income of Rs.50,000 to Rs.60,000 per month through his furniture
shop, but the learned court has taken into consideration that no
documentary evidence with regard to the income of the present
petitioner was filed by the wife and the learned court has considered
the status and the living standard of the present petitioner and has
awarded an amount of Rs.5,000 per month to the wife and Rs.2,000
per month for the purposes of maintenance of the son although the
maintenance was claimed at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month for
herself and Rs. 5000/- per month for the minor child. The maintenance
has been awarded after considering all the facts and circumstances of
the case. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order.
9. This Court finds that the learned court framed the relevant
issues, including the issue as to whether the wife had sufficient
reasons to live separately and decided the same in favour of the wife
on the basis of materials on record. The fact that the wife has also
filed a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is
not being disputed by the petitioner before this Court. Rather, the
petitioner himself has admitted that there are multiple cases going on
between the parties. This Court after going through the impugned
order does not find any illegality or perversity calling for any
interference. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.
10. The law is well settled that in case of any changed
circumstances, the parties have appropriate remedy under the
provisions of section 127 of Cr.P.C.
11. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through
FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
