Jharkhand High Court
Shrikant Pandey vs Radho Pandey on 10 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 1402 of 2022
-----
Shrikant Pandey, S/o Radho Pandey Age - 47 years, R/o Quarter
No. 1B/181, Subhash Nagar, P.O. - Amlo, P.S. - Bermo, District -
Bokaro, Jharkhand ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Radho Pandey, S/o Late Jaidev Pandey
2. Bhagmatli Devi W/o Radho Pandey, R/o Quarter No. 1B/182,
Subhash Nagar, P.O. - Amlo, P.S. - Bermo, District - Bokaro,
Jharkhand ... ... ... Opp. Parties
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Md. Imran Hassan, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
------
Order No. 07/Dated 10th May, 2024
Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel appearing for
the opposite parties.
2. The petitioner by filing the instant revision petition has
prayed for setting aside the judgment dated 06.10.2022 passed by
the learned Additional Principle Judge, Additional Family Court,
Tenughat, in Original Maintenance Case No. 85 of 2020 whereby
and whereunder, the learned Family Court has been pleased to
allow the application filed by the opposite parties under Section
125 Cr.P.C. and has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of
Rs. 10,000/-, per month to each opposite party as maintenance
allowance from the date of institution of the case i.e. 15.07.2020.
3. As far as the factual matrix of the present case is
concerned, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 being the father and
mother respectively filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
against their elder son i.e. petitioner for getting maintenance.
4. It is contended in the maintenance petition that O.P. No. 1
was working in CCL and on account of his ill health, he quit the
job in the year 1994 and as per the Clause 9.4.3 of National Coal
Wage Agreement, petitioner got the job and he had given in a
writing to CCL that he shall take care of both the opposite parties
as well as his minor brother, but after elapse of sometime,
petitioner did not take care to maintain the opposite parties.
5. It is further case of opposite parties that as the petitioner
was not taken care of them as such, they shifted to place of their
younger son, who happens to be younger brother of petitioner,
but his income is meager as such, he could not able to maintain
opposite parties. It is also contended by opposite parties that the
petitioner is having handsome salary of Rs. 1.2 lakhs.
6. It transpires that the petitioner filed a written statement
and contended therein that it is the younger brother who
prompted the opposite parties to file case under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. and it is also stated by the petitioner that the petitioner is
having two daughters and one son and one daughter is pursuing
her studies at Bangaluru whereas second daughter is studying at
Ranchi and younger son is studying at D.A.V., Makauli. However,
petitioner undertook to take care of his parents i.e. opposite
parties, but at the same time it is contended by the petitioner that
the younger son of opposite parties is also earning handsomely as
such he should also contribute in the maintenance of their parents
i.e. opposite parties.
7. The material on record suggests that initially the interim
maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- each was granted by the learned Trial
Court. It further transpires that the opposite parties who happen
to be the petitioners before the learned Trial Court has got
examined three witnesses in support of their contention, whereas
the petitioner/non-applicant has also got examined three
witnesses in support of his contention.
8. After perusing the material available on record, it
transpires that certain facts are admitted in the present case. As
far as, employment of the petitioner in CCL is concerned, it is
admitted position that on account of ill-health of opposite party
No. 1, petitioner got employment in CCL as Crane Operator in
Kargali, Bokaro, Jharkhand. It is further admitted fact that after all
deduction including the interim maintenance, the petitioner is
getting Rs. 55,000/- as a salary apart from bonus, etc. given by the
CCL time to time.
9. Considering the material available on record, learned
Trial Court vide order dated 06.10.2023 awarded Rs. 10,000/- per
month as the maintenance to each of the opposite party and being
aggrieved by the above said order of maintenance, the petitioner
preferred the present revision petition before this Court.
10. During pendency of the present revision petition, this
Court directed the petitioner and opposite parties to go to
Mediation Centre, Bokaro for the purpose of mediation. The
mediation report dated 26.08.2023 available on record reveals that
matter has been settled between the petitioner and opposite
parties.
11. The mediation agreement arrived at between the
petitioner and opposite parties which is also annexed with the
mediation report and after perusing the same, this Court finds
that the petitioner and the opposite parties have agreed that the
petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month each to opposite party
on the 10th day of English calendar month from the salary account
of the petitioner. Apart from above-said term and condition of
settlement, the petitioner, opposite parties and also the younger
brother of the petitioner have agreed for settlement of the
immovable properties as contained in Paragraphs - 2 and 3 of the
mediation agreement, dated 26.08.2023.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the opposite parties appeared before this Court and
submitted that as the matter has been amicably settled between
both the sides, as such necessary order shall be passed.
13. This Court is of considered view that in revision, Court
has to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the
impugned order.
14 Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded to
the fact that after settlement between the parties, petitioner does
not want to assail the impugned order dated 06.10.2022 passed by
the learned Additional Principle Judge, Additional Family Court,
Tenughat, in Original Maintenance Case No. 85 of 2020 on merit,
as such, petitioner does not want to press present revision.
15. In view of above stated fact, the present revision petition
stands dismissed, as not pressed.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Umesh-Abhishek/-
