Priyanka Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1103 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Priyanka Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                                2025:JHHC:20387


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. Revision No.1122 of 2024
      Priyanka Devi, W/o Raj Kumar Tiwari, R/o Bhowra No.13, Near Kanta
      Ghar, PO- Bhowra, PS - Sudamdih, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
                                                   .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                          Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Raj Kumar Tiwari, S/o Late Rajendra Tiwari, R/o Bhutgaria 13 No.
         Block, BCCL Quarter Colony, Near Shiv Mandir, PO Bhutgaria,
         District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand.              .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
            ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, APP For the O.P. No.2 : None ......

09/ 24.07.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The instant Cr. Revision has been preferred against the impugned order/ judgment dated 28.08.2024 passed by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court No.II, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.218 of 2020 under Section 125 Cr. P. C. whereby the petition of the petitioner for grant of maintenance has been rejected.

2. The admitted position is that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the O.P. No.2 as the marriage was solemnized on 07.06.2006 and both of them were living together at Borragarh, Dhanbad.

3. The petitioner has been denied maintenance under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. on the ground that she was living in adulterous relationship. The evidence on the point was that the criminal case is pending against the petitioner under Sections 4 and 6(1-b) of the Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 wherein she was arrested in a compromising situation by the Police in a semi naked condition in the house of one Guddu Bouri. As per the FIR, she was in adulterous relationship with one Sonu Singh.

4. Learned Family Court has also noted that the evidence on behalf of the Opp. Party(s) is to the same effect regarding her adulterous relationship.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial in the said Police Case against the petitioner for the offences under the Immoral Traffic Act has not been concluded so far and has not 2025:JHHC:20387

attained its finality. Therefore, it cannot be made the sole basis for denying the maintenance.

6. Notice was earlier issued to the O. P. No.2 and he has appeared In-person in this case, but today he is not present in the Court.

7. However, learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that it is not only due to criminal case under the Immoral Traffic Act which became the ground for denying the maintenance, but also there were other evidences as there were altogether eight witnesses who were examined on behalf of O. P. No.2 who have supported the case of the Opp. Party No.2 that the petitioner was in adulterous relationship.

8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, I find merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that pendency of the criminal case cannot be the sole ground for drawing an inference regarding adulterous relationship. However, there was sufficient evidence on record on which a factual finding has been recorded by the learned Family Court that the petitioner was in adulterous relationship. The revisional Court cannot act like a Trial Court to upset the finding of fact.

9. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the instant Cr.

Revision which accordingly stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Sandeep/-