Jharkhand High Court
Mr. Md. Sahnawaj vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 October, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 400 of 2023
Mr. Md. Sahnawaj, Son of Late Saheb Rajja, Aged about 32 years,
R/o Mullick Muhalla, Sunday Bazar, P.O.- Berma, P.S- Gandhinagar,
District- Bokaro (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mrs. Chhoti Parveen wife of Md. Sahnawaj, Daughter of Md.
Sirajuddin, Permanent resident of C/o Sri Sirajuddin, Qtr. No. 549,
Mullick Muhalla, Sunday Bazar, P.O.- Bermo, P.S.- Gandhinagar,
District- Bokaro (Jharkhand) ... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Advocate
---
Reserved on 14.08.2024 Pronounced on 04.10.2024
1. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated
24.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional
Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro), in Original Maintenance Case
No. 171/2019 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the applicant-
wife-Opposite Party No.2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed
and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) per
month to the Opposite Party No.2 as maintenance from the date of filing of
the case i.e. from 05.07.2019.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage of
the petitioner with the Opposite Party No.2 was not solemnized as per the
rituals and the marriage was not consummated. He further submitted that in
the show cause, the petitioner had clearly stated that the applicant has
independent source of income and that the petitioner is earning only to the
extent of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month and does not have enough
source of income to the pay maintenance to the applicant. These aspects of
the matter have not been considered properly and therefore, the impugned
order calls for interference. He also submitted that the petitioner is at present
working in Russia and at the relevant point of time also, he was working in
Russia.
3. He further submitted that pursuant to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rajnesh Vs. Neha" reported in
(2021) 2 SCC 324, the affidavit was filed by the Opposite Party No.2
(applicant), but the said affidavit was not filed by the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties opposed the prayer and
submitted that there is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the
impugned order calling for any interference.
5. The facts of the case as per the petition filed under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. are that the applicant/Mrs. Chhoti Parveen is the legally married
wife of the petitioner-Md. Sahnawaj. Their marriage was solemnized on
03.05.2017 according to Law at Bokaro and thereafter, they lived together as
husband and wife, but no child was born out of their wedlock. The petitioner
belongs to upper caste 'Saiyed' muslim and the applicant belongs to lower
caste 'Ansari' muslim. Prior to their marriage, both were living in the same
locality and they fell in love with each other and got married on 03.05.2017
before District Marriage Officer, Bokaro. The petitioner is a technocrat and
just after the marriage, he went to Russia for his job and used to send money
to the applicant in her mother's bank Account No. 489318210001343 and
last payment of Rs.9,497/- was made on 11.12.2018. Since applicant was not
taken to her matrimonial home after the marriage, she is residing at her
parental house and when the petitioner came back from Russia, she insisted
to take her to her matrimonial house, but it was avoided by the petitioner on
some or the other pretext. On 22.03.2019, the petitioner took the applicant
by his car to a nearby isolated place in a 'Jungle and tried to make physical
relation with her, but she objected and asked the applicant to take her to his
house. Thereafter, the petitioner brutally assaulted the applicant and also
demanded cash dowry so that his mother could be satisfied and left the
applicant in injured and semi-conscious state. Later on, the applicant was
taken to her parental house by passersby. She reported the matter to the local
police who convened a panchayati where the petitioner alongwith his family
members appeared and assured the applicant that she will be taken to her
matrimonial house. But as soon as the petitioner came out of the police
station, he declined to take the applicant to his house. Thereafter, Bermo
Mahila P.S. Case No. 02/2019 dated 22.03.2019 under Sections 498(A)/34
of Indian Penal Code was registered. When the petitioner filed A.B.P.
No.68/2019 before the court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Bokaro, the matter was referred to Mediation Center, but mediation failed
and thereafter, prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail was rejected on
15.06.2019. Applicant is a housewife having no source of income and she is
unable to maintain herself, whereas the petitioner is a technocrat having
monthly income of Rs.1.5 to 2 Lakh in foreign currency, but he has flatly
refused to maintain her. Accordingly, the applicant prayed for directing the
petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to her towards her maintenance.
6. The petitioner-husband appeared on 16.08.2019 and filed his show
cause on 06.12.2019 denying the claims of the applicant and stating that the
applicant never lived with him as wife and husband. He further stated that he
is not a technocrat, rather he has degree of technical education and is an
unskilled labour and he earns Rs.10,000 - Rs. 12,000/- per month only and
his payment is not regular. He has separate mess living separately from his
widow mother and brother. He further stated that the applicant herself does
not want to live with him and she wants to keep him as 'Gharjamai'. No
nikah was performed between the applicant and the petitioner and the
applicant and her family members are trying to extort money from him and
they are demanding Rs.10 Lakh. The applicant has cunningly arranged
marriage with him with ill motive. He further stated that the applicant is
doing private job and earns Rs.10-15 thousand per month and she is able to
maintain herself, whereas he is facing hardship having no source of income
and his condition is very miserable. He denied the allegation of dowry
demand and stated that he and his family members have been falsely
implicated in the case under Section 498(A) of IPC. He prayed for dismissal
of the petition filed by the applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C..
7. In the light of the pleadings of both sides, the learned Family Court
formulated the following points for determination to decide the maintenance
case:
(I) Whether this petition is maintainable or not?
(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get Maintenance from the O.P. as
sought, if so, what should be the quantum of Maintenance?
(III) What should be the date of payment of Maintenance and also what
should be the mode of payment?
8. The applicant examined altogether five witnesses in support of her
case. PW-1 is Md. Sirajuddin (father of applicant), PW-2 is Shaban Parveen
(sister-in-law of applicant), PW-3 is Md. Mokim Ansari (cousin brother of
applicant), PW-4 is Md. Kalim Ansari (relative of applicant) and PW-5 is
Chhoti Parveen (applicant herself).
9. PW-5 is the applicant-wife herself who in her examination-in-chief
filed on affidavit stated that she is legally married wife of the petitioner and
her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 03.05.2017 at the office
of the Special Marriage Officer, Bokaro. She exhibited the Certificate
No.20/2017 dated 03.05.2017 as Mark-X for identification. No child was
born to her out of the wedlock. She further stated that prior to their marriage,
both were living in the same mohalla and they fell in love with each other.
Her husband is an engineer working in Russia and just after the marriage, he
went to Russia and he used to send money in the bank account of her mother
as maintenance and the last payment of Rs.9497/- was made on 11.12.2018,
but thereafter he stopped sending money. After returning from Russia, she
pressed the petitioner for her bidai, but on 22.03.2019, he took her to a
lonely place and tried to make physical relation with her, but he failed and
he brutally assaulted her and demanded dowry and left her in semi-
unconscious condition and the nearby people took her to her house.
Thereafter, she lodged Bermo Mahila P.S. Case No. 02/2019 dated
22.03.2019 under Sections 498(A)/34 of Indian Penal Code against her
husband. She exhibited the certified copy of FIR as Exhibit-P-1. She
exhibited her signatures on each page of the maintenance petition as Exhibit-
P-2 to P-2/5. She further stated that she is a house wife having no source of
income, whereas her husband is a technocrat who earns Rs.1.2 to 2 Lakh per
month in foreign currency and is able to maintain her. During cross-
examination, she admitted that after the marriage, she had gone to Delhi
with her husband and had stayed there in a lodge for about 15 days and after
returning from Delhi, she is staying at her parental house because her
husband went for his job. She denied the suggestion that her husband is not
an engineer. She admitted that she is a Muslim, but her marriage was not
solemnized as per Muslim Religion. She also admitted that her husband had
sent money in her mother's account twice or thrice prior to 11.12.2018. She
denied the suggestion that they have no relation of husband and wife and she
was never tortured by her husband for demand of dowry. She further stated
that panchayati had taken place and she can file the paper of panchayati
prepared at the police station. She denied the suggestion that the case filed
under Section 498(A) of IPC on 22.03.2019 is false. She admitted that she
and her parental family members are on bail in Complaint Case
No.372/2019 filed by her mother-in-law namely, Rasida Bano against her
and her parental family members.
10. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 have supported the case of the
applicant in their respective examination-in-chief filed on affidavits.
11. PW-1 (father of applicant), in his cross-examination, admitted that the
applicant had solemnized court marriage with the petitioner, but he was not a
witness of the marriage. After Court marriage on that day, Sahnawaj stayed
at his house and he went to Russia on the next day and his daughter stayed at
his house. He had no knowledge about the job and salary of the petitioner.
His daughter told him about her marriage after one year of solemnizing her
court marriage. He has seen the certificate of the marriage. He further
admitted that his house and the house of the petitioner are situated in the
same mohalla. He further admitted that his daughter had made several
attempts to go to her matrimonial house, but she never went to her
matrimonial house. He admitted that they are on bail in the case filed by the
mother of the petitioner. He further stated that the petitioner has vehicle and
his mother lives in C.C.L. quarter.
12. PW-2 (Bhabhi of applicant) in her cross-examination admitted that the
marriage of the applicant was solemnized on 03.05.2017 and she had come
to know about the marriage after one week and the applicant is residing at
her parental house after the marriage. The applicant had gone to Delhi with
the petitioner, but she never went to her matrimonial house. The petitioner is
an engineer and was working in Russia.
13. PW-3 (cousin brother of applicant) in his cross-examination admitted
that he had come to know about the marriage of the applicant in the evening
on 03.05.2017 and he knew that the applicant has love affair with the
petitioner.
14. PW-4 (relative of applicant) in his cross-examination admitted that he
knows the petitioner for the last 6 years and he knew that the applicant and
the petitioner have love affair. He admitted that the applicant is his cousin
sister. The houses of the applicant and the petitioner are in the same locality.
After the marriage, the applicant had gone to Delhi with the petitioner and
returned to Bokaro after 10-15 days and he and his friend Mokim had
received them at Bokaro station. He further admitted that the petitioner had
sent Rs.9,500/- per month in the account of the mother of the applicant from
the year 2017 to December, 2018. He further admitted that the applicant is
presently residing at her parental house.
15. The petitioner-husband produced and examined one witness Buland
Iqbal as DW-1 on his behalf. DW-1 in his examination-chief filed on
affidavit stated that he is the younger brother of the petitioner and the
marriage of the petitioner with the applicant was never solemnized as per
Muslim rites and they never lived as husband and wife and she has never
come to the house of the petitioner after 03.05.2017. He further stated that
the petitioner is a labour having no fixed income and he earns Rs.8,000 to
10,000/- per month and he has never paid any amount to the applicant as
maintenance. After court marriage, the applicant is demanding Rs.10 Lakh
from the petitioner for which his mother has filed Complaint Case
No.372/2019 and the applicant has also filed Bermo Mahila P.S. Case No.
02/2019 under Sections 498(A)/34 of Indian Penal Code. He further stated
that the applicant earns Rs.15,000/- per month from coaching business. In
his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no knowledge of the present
residence of the petitioner and he cannot say the exact number of students
attending the tuition class of the applicant.
16. The learned Family Court considered the evidences and materials on
record and recorded its findings at Para-9, 10 and 11 of the order which read
as under:
"9. For Point No. (i) of determination
Perused the record. This case has been filed by the petitioner
against O.P. u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance for herself. Rs.25,000/-
per month towards the Maintenance has been demanded. It is
admitted fact that there is certificate issued by Marriage Officer,
Bokaro regarding solemnization of marriage of petitioner with the
respondent and the petitioner is living separately from the O.P. and
the O.P. is not looking after the petitioner and also not paying
maintenance cost to her.
Hence, under the circumstances, it can be safely said that
Chhoti Praveen is legally married wife of O.P. Hence, the petition of
the petitioner is maintainable. Therefore, Point No.(I) for
determination is accordingly decided in favour of petitioner.
10. Determination of Point No. (II & III)
To decide the maintenance petition, the court is required to see
the exact source of income of the husband. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another reported
in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903 has been pleased to give guidelines to
decide the petition filed for maintenance. In the light of the guidelines,
given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh
Vs. Neha and Another (supra), the parties were directed to file their
respective affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities. But
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner only regarding
disclosure of her assets and liabilities.
11. On careful scrutiny of the evidence and materials available on
record, this court finds that the petitioner is the wife of the O.P.. It has
also come in evidence that petitioner is living with her parents. PW-1
(father of petitioner) in Para- 3 and 4 of his examination-in-chief has
clearly stated that after marriage, Md. Sahnawaj never came for
'Bidai' of petitioner Chhoti Parveen despite repeated request made by
this witness. Further in Para-13 of his cross-examination, this witness
says that after Court marriage on that day, Md. Sahnawaj stayed at
his parents' house and he went to Russia on next day. In Para-19 of
his cross-examination, this witness says that many attempts were
made by the daughter to go to her 'Sasural', but she was never taken
to her 'Sasural'. As such, petitioner had never lived at her
matrimonial house.
Furthermore, in Para-15 of his cross-examination, this witness
says that his daughter told him about her marriage after one year of
solemnizing her court marriage. Whereas, the petitioner (P.W.-5) in
Para-17 of her cross-examination has stated that on 03.05.2017 after
marriage, she went to Delhi with her husband Sahnawaj which seems
to be unbelievable because father of the petitioner has no knowledge
about her marriage. Hence, going to Delhi by petitioner with Md.
Sahnawaj became doubtful. But in the instant case, this fact is not
material to decide the facts in issue. Therefore, this court is of the
view that the petitioner is able to establish her case for the purpose of
getting maintenance from O.P.. So, she is entitled to get maintenance
from the O.P. Hence, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to
get maintenance from the O.P. u/s 125 Cr.P.C."
17. On the quantum of maintenance, the learned Family Court recorded
its findings at Para-12 which reads as under:
"12. Now the question of quantum of maintenance amount
In his written statement, O.P. has admitted that he is earning
Rs.10,000 - 12,000/- per month. Though petitioner alleged that O.P.
is earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month because he is engineer, but no
proof regarding this fact has been introduced. Further, O.P. claimed
that petitioner is earning 10 to 15 thousand per month by giving
tuition to students, but no proof regarding this has been adduced
before court by the O.P.. More so, the proceedings U/s. 125 Cr.P.C.
are summary in nature, Section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived to
ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who
had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements
could be made to enable her to sustain herself. Since it is the
sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the
wife, the husband was required to earn money even by physical
labour, if he is able-bodies, and could not avoid his obligation, except
on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. The
reliance may be placed upon the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs.
Meena, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353. ..............................."
18. After going through the impugned order and the materials on record,
this Court finds that the petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 solemnized their
marriage on 03.05.2017 at the office of the Special Marriage Officer, Bokaro
and Certificate No.20/2017 dated 03.05.2017, which has been exhibited as
Mark-X for identification by the applicant, was issued to them and the
petitioner has never denied the existence of the said marriage certificate.
Rather the petitioner in his show cause has further stated that the applicant
herself does not want to live with him and she wants to keep him as
'Gharjamai'. These facts fully establish that the applicant-Mrs. Chhoti
Parveen is a legally married wife of the petitioner.
19. This Court further finds that PW-5 applicant-wife in her examination-
in-chief stated that just after the marriage, the petitioner went to Russia for
his job and he used to send money to her in her mother's Bank Account No.
489318210001343 as maintenance and the last payment of Rs.9,497/- was
made on 11.12.2018, but thereafter he stopped sending money and since she
was not taken to her matrimonial home after the marriage, she is residing at
her parental house. After returning from Russia also, the petitioner did not
take her to her matrimonial house. PW-5 has further stated that on
22.03.2019, the petitioner took her to a lonely place and brutally assaulted
her and demanded dowry and left her in semi-unconscious condition. The
nearby people took her to her house and thereafter, she lodged Bermo
Mahila P.S. Case No. 02/2019 dated 22.03.2019 under Sections 498(A)/34
of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. She has exhibited the certified
copy of FIR as Exhibit-P-1. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 are the
relatives of the applicant-wife and they have supported her case in their
examination-in-chief as well as in their cross examination. DW-1 (younger
brother of the petitioner) in his examination-in-chief stated that the applicant
has never come to the house of the petitioner after 03.05.2017. Furthermore,
the applicant-wife in her examination-in-chief has stated that she is a house
wife having no source of income, whereas the petitioner works in Russia.
She has also filed her affidavit disclosing her assets and liabilities. This
Court finds that the applicant has successfully established her case that she is
living at her parental house separate from the petitioner since the date of her
marriage on 03.05.2017 with cogent and sufficient reasons. Accordingly,
this court finds that the applicant-wife has successfully established her case
getting maintenance from the petitioner.
20. So far the quantum of maintenance is concerned, this Court finds
that in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (Criminal Appeal
No.730/2020 dated 04.11.2020) reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, both parties
were directed to file their respective affidavits of disclosure of assets and
liabilities, but only the applicant-wife filed her affidavit disclosing her assets
and liabilities, whereas the petitioner-husband did not file his affidavit
disclosing his assets and liabilities.
21. This Court further finds that the petitioner in his show cause has stated
that he has degree of technical education and as per the submissions on
behalf of the petitioner, he is at present working in Russia and at the relevant
point of time also the petitioner was working in Russia. Furthermore, inspite
of direction by the learned Family Court, the petitioner did not file his
affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities in compliance to the guidelines
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha
and Another (supra). There is no explanation from the side of the petitioner
for not filing the affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities. The petitioner
has neither pleaded nor has filed any document (copy of passport etc.) to
demonstrate that he was in Russia due to which he could not file his affidavit
disclosing his assets and liabilities. This Court further finds that the learned
Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per
month only to the Opposite Party No.2 as maintenance, which cannot be said
to be excessive or disproportionate considering the earning potential of the
petitioner.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bakulabai and Another
Vs. Ganga Ram and Another reported in (1988) 1 SCC 537 has observed
that in circumstances where no error of law is discovered in the judgment
passed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisional
court is not justified in making a reassessment of evidence and substitute its
own views.
23. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view
of the aforesaid findings, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by
the learned Family Court is a well-reasoned order having no illegality,
perversity or irregularity and it does not call for any interference.
Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the criminal revision petition
which is hereby dismissed.
24. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
25. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
26. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below
through 'FAX/email'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
