Vinay Oraon @ Vinay Tirkey @ Binay Tirkey vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5009 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Vinay Oraon @ Vinay Tirkey @ Binay Tirkey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 April, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Cr. Revision No. 386 of 2025
                        ------

Vinay Oraon @ Vinay Tirkey @ Binay Tirkey ......Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Veena Devi @ Veena Kumari ......Opp. Parties

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P

------

Order No. 02/ Dated: 21.04.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed by Sri Om Prakash, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla in Original Maintenance Case No. 39 of 2018 by which the composite maintenance amount of Rs. 11, 600/- per month has been directed to be paid by the petitioner to the O.P No. 2 and her child with the further direction to pay arrears of Rs. 4, 53,373/- to the O.P No. 2 within three (03) months.

2. I.A No. 2569 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for staying the operation of the impugned judgment/order dated 27.11.2024 in Original Maintenance Case No. 39/2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that O.P No. 2 is not a legally wedded wife and she had instituted a case against the petitioner under Section 498-A and Section 376 of the I.P.C but the police have submitted charge sheet against the

petitioner only under Section 376 of the I.P.C. However, the petitioner has no objection in paying the maintenance amount to the daughter @ Rs. 3,500/- per month.

4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the O.P No. 2 while he was granted Anticipatory Bail by the Hon'ble High Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has not performed marriage with the O.P No.2.

5. It appears that the petitioner has challenged his marriage with the O.P No. 2. However, it has come on record from the impugned order that the petitioner is the biological father of the daughter of O.P No. 2 in light of D.N.A Report.

6. Under the circumstances, issue notice to O.P No. 2 as to why this case be not admitted and/or disposed of at the stage of admission itself and for which, requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process must be filed within two weeks from today, failing which, this Criminal Revision Application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

7. Put up this case on 2nd July 2025.

8. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the daughter and O.P No.2 instead of Rs. 11,600/- till further order of this Court.

9. Thus, I.A No. 2569 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Avinash/