Jharkhand High Court
Bablu Mallick Aged About 32 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.1073 of 2024
----
Bablu Mallick aged about 32 years, son of Srinath Mallick, resident of Village &
P.O.-Baski Chak, P.S.-Dumka(M), District-Dumka.
.... .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anima Devi, aged about 22 years, wife of Bablu Mallick and daughter of Manoj
Mallick, resident of Village-Jhurko, P.O.-Gujisimal, P.S.-Shikaripara, District-
Dumka.
3. Bhargav Mallick, aged about 1 and ½ years, son of Bablu Mallick and daughter of
Manoj Mallick, resident of Village-Jhurko, P.O.-Gujisimal, P.S.-Shikaripara,
District-Dumka. Both permanent address Village & P.O.-Baski Chak, P.S.-
Dumka(M), District-Dumka. .... .... Opposite Party(s)
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kr. No.4, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.
----
02/Dated: 16th October, 2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order
dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in
Original Maintenance Case No.72 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the learned
Principal Judge was pleased to direct the revisionist to pay Rs.7000/- per month to
the opposite party no.2 and Rs.2000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 as
maintenance.
3. From the argument and pleading of the parties, it appears that the parties have
got married as per the Hindu Customs and Rites on 02.12.2018 and they have also
been blessed with a male child. Further, thereafter the allegation has been made by
the wife that for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry she has been harassed and
humiliated and has been driven out from the house.
4. Further, it has been claimed by the wife that she is unable to maintain herself
and the husband is a government employee, employed as a constable and accordingly
maintenance has been claimed.
5. It further appears that the husband has taken plea that there was compromise
between the parties and on that compromise she was residing separately with her
parents and as such she is not entitled for maintenance because it was a consensual.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is
some problem in the service life and he is unable to pay the maintenance as ordered
by the court below. Further, the revisionist is ready and willing to keep the wife with
proper care and dignity. On this basis, the maintenance order has been contested.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the
records, it appears that the court below has taken into consideration the entire factual
matrix of the case and finding has been recorded that the wife has sufficient cause for
not residing with the husband and she is unable to maintain herself and the husband
is a government employee who is very much able to give the maintenance to the wife
and minor son.
8. Considering the factual matrix of the case and perusing the impugned order, I
find no reason to entertain the present criminal revision, accordingly, the same is
hereby dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
Uploaded
Page | 2 Criminal Revision No.1073 of 2024
