Mr. Edward Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 5162 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mr. Edward Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 May, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                             Cr. Revision No. 450 of 2019

            Mr. Edward Marandi, son of Trophimas Marandi, Aged about 28
            years, resident of Village-Bandajori, P.S. Dumka (T), P.O. Jama,
            District-Dumka, permanent Resident of Village Kuruwa, P.O.+ P.S.
            Jama, District-Dumka                         ...     ...     Petitioner
                                       Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand
            2. Mrs. Mery Sheela Besra, W/o Edward Marandi, D/o Sri Sunilal
               Besra, aged 33 years, Permanent resident of Village Karma, P.O.
               Ghasipur, P.S. Dumka (M), District-Dumka, at present residing at
               Village Kuruwa, P.O. and P.S. Jama, District-Dumka
                                              ...           ...        Opp. Parties
                                              ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

            For the Petitioner         : Mr. Alka Kumari, Advocate
            For the O.P. No. 2         : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate
                                       : Ms. Kanishka Goenka, Advocate
            For the State              : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                                       ---

14/10.05.2024         Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 08.03.2019 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 30/2018 filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. wherein the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 as maintenance since 13.04.2018 i.e. the date of institution of the maintenance case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of this case the marriage between the parties has dissolved on 08.02.2019 with permanent alimony of Rs. 3,00,000/- and compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (six lakhs) was to be paid. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner could not arrange money and therefore no amount against permanent alimony/compensation has been paid to the opposite party No. 2. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has offered an amount of Rs. Two lacs instead of Rs. Six lakhs to the opposite party No. 2.

4. The learned counsel has also submitted that in compliance of order passed by this court, an amount of Rs. One lakh has been deposited vide DD No. 909978 before the learned Registrar General.

5. On the merits of the case, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed in favour of the petitioner. Still the opposite party No. 2 did not reside with the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the opposite party No. 2 has sufficient reason for not abiding by the order of restitution of conjugal rights. Parties were in litigating terms and a case under section 376 IPC was also filed against the petitioner by one lady as mentioned in the impugned order itself which ended in a compromise.

7. The learned counsel has also submitted that divorce suit was also filed by the husband against the opposite party no.2 which was registered as Original Suit No. 80 of 2014 and ultimately it ended into a decree of divorce on concession made by the opposite party no.2 with a stipulation regarding payment of permanent alimony and compensation. He submits that these aspects of the matter have been taken into consideration by the learned court and after recording that no amount was paid in spite of order passed in divorce, a direction was issued for payment of Maintenance. The learned counsel has submitted that criminal case was also instituted by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner which was registered as Dumka(M) P.S. Case No. 121 of 2013.

8. The learned counsel submits that the amount which has been deposited through demand draft is required to be renewed by the petitioner. To this the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner shall renew the demand draft subject to the final outcome of this case.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case it is not in dispute that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.04.2012 according to Christian customs and the opposite party No. 2 left her matrimonial

home and was living with her parents since May 2013. There were multiple litigations between the parties and the petitioner had filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed on 29.06.2013 and so far, as opposite party No. 2 is concerned, she has also filed a case under section 498-A of IPC read with section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 05.11.2013. It is further not in dispute that one FIR was registered against the petitioner as Amrapara P.S. Case No. 21 of 2014 u/s 376 of IPC, however after having refused bail, the petitioner entered into compromise with the concerned lady and thereafter he was acquitted. In the meantime, the petitioner also filed a petition seeking divorce numbered as Original Suit No. 80 of 2014 which ultimately was decreed on the basis of concession made by the opposite party No. 2 in favour of the husband and an amount of Rs. Six lakhs were to be paid apart from other articles. The same was decreed vide judgment dated 08.02.2019 but in spite of such order the petitioner did not pay any amount to the opposite party No. 2.

10. Before this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner while filing an affidavit has refused to pay the said amount by stating that he does not have the capacity to make the payment and has offered a lesser amount. The fact that the petitioner did not pay any amount in spite of the decree of divorce dated 08.02.2019 was taken into consideration by the learned court and ultimately the learned court has passed the order of maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2.

11. After having gone through the impugned order this court finds that all the relevant aspects of the matter and the materials placed on record had been taken into consideration while passing the order of maintenance which was a meagre amount only to the extent of Rs. 5,000 per month to be paid since 13.04.2018 i.e. the date on which the application for maintenance was filed. The learned court has recorded the findings in paragraph 5 to 8 which is quoted as under:-

" 5. All the P.Ws has supported the case of the petitioner/wife on all material particulars. Similarly all the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent has supported the case of the respondent. However

certain aspects vital for deciding the maintenance case are admitted by both the parties-

(i) The relationship between petitioner and the respondent being wife and husband, married on 25 4.2012 at N.E.L.C. Church according to Christian customs is admitted.

(i) Factum of the petitioner leaving her matrimonial house and staying away at paternal house since May 2013 is also admitted. Of course, the reason behind the same is disputed.

(iii) Filing of Criminal Case bearing no. GR. 1615/2013 u's 498'A' I.P.C. by the petitioner against the respondent and her family members, same being pending in the Court of CJ M., Dumka is also admitted.

(iv) Filing of Criminal Case under section 376 IPC against the respondent/husband Edward Marandi by informant Sonam Hembrom registered as Amra Para PS. Case no. 21/2014, the trial of which was held in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Pakur is admitted.

(v) Filing of restitution of conjugal rights suit by respondent/ husband against respondent/wife in the Family Court, Dumka registered as O.S. 80/2013 and the decree passed there in favour of the respondent directing the petitioner to join the conjugal right of the respondent/husband is also admitted. It is also not in dispute that petitioner/wife has opted not to abide by direction of the Court passed as above in O.S. 59/13:

(vi) Filing of Divorce Suit by the respondent/husband against petitioner/wife in this Court itself registered as O.S.80/2014 is also admitted, being a matter of record.

(vii) The petitioner wife being maintained by her parents for the last more than five years without any help, either in cash or kind from the respondent/husband or his family is also admitted.

6. Apart from the admitted position above referred, this Court can always take judicial notice of the fact that O.S. 80/2014 filed by respondent/ husband against the petitioner/wife has finally been decreed on the basis of concession made by wife in favour of the husband and the husband has been asked to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ as cost of the gifted articles belonging to the wife but retained by him and his family members and also one time permanent alimony of Rs. 3,00,000/ to the wife vide Judgment dated 8.2.2019. In course of argument when this Court asked the counsel for the parties, as to whether the compensation and permanent alimony has been offered by husband and received by respondent/wife, after verifying the fact from the respective parties learned counsels Submitted that till date the amount of compensation and permanent alimony has not yet been offered, therefore there is no question of same being received.

7. To make out a case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by wife against her husband following ingredients should be proved by petitioner-

(i) That she is legally wedded wife of O.P./husband.

(ii) That her husband having sufficient means is neglecting or refusing her to maintain or taking due care of her.

(iii) That she is unable to maintain herself.

8. Despite making out above ingredients the Court shall refuse to grant maintenance if the case of the petitioner is covered by any of the two exceptions provided under section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. which reads as under-

"No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings, as the case may be, from the husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent."

8. In view of the admitted positions above referred, coupled with the judicial notice taken by the Court as mentioned in Paragraph-6; this Court has come to the conclusion that admittedly the petitioner has been residing away from her husband. The respondent since 18.5.2013 till date though residing separately has not received a single paisa in maintenance. It is also admitted that despite passing of judgment and decree in divorce suit in O.S. 40/2018 filed by respondent till date nothing has been paid to the petitioner/wife despite direction to the effect made in judgment dated 8.2.2019 passed in 0.5.80/2013 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ as permanent alimony and of Rs. 3,00,000/ as cost of gifted articles belonging to the wife but not returned by her.

10. Having discussed the legal positions, for plea for denying of grant of maintenance taken by the respondent, that he is still dependent on his parents as he is just a student has no legs to stand. All the necessary ingredients required for grant of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. are fulfilled by the petitioner. Moreover, the judgment and decree of divorce has already been passed on the petition of the respondent and therefore there is no chance of any restitution between them. Admittedly the husband respondent has not paid a single paisa even after passing of judgment and decree of divorce in O.S. 80/2017.

11. Considering that the petitioner is young able bodied man, based on minimum wages for a skilled person, his monthly income is assessed as Rs. 15,000/-. Accordingly, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition."

12. The learned court also recorded that the judgment of decree and divorce has already been passed so there is no chance of any kind of restitution between the parties and the petitioner has not even given a single penny pursuant to the judgment and decree of divorce in original suit No. 80 of 2014.

13. This court finds that the learned court has passed a well- reasoned order and no case for interference is made out in revisional jurisdiction. There being no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

14. So far as the demand draft of Rs. One lakh which has been deposited by the petitioner in the name of the opposite party No. 2 and is lying in the office of learned Registrar General is concerned, the petitioner is directed to renew the same and re-deposit it in the office of learned Registrar General within a period of two months from today. Upon such deposit, the learned Registrar General shall release the renewed demand draft in favour of the opposite party no.2 after due identification. The said amount of Rs. One lakh will be adjusted against the maintenance payable by the petitioner.

15. An affidavit dated 07.12.2023 has been filed by the state pursuant to order passed by this Court regarding assessment of property of the petitioner.

16. This criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.

17. Pending I.A, if any, is closed.

18. Let this order as well as the affidavit regarding assessment of property of the petitioner be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit