Jharkhand High Court
Ramkrishna Mahato @ Ram Krishna Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1228 of 2022
....
Ramkrishna Mahato @ Ram Krishna Mahato, aged about 36
years, Son of Jawaharlal Mahato @ Jawahar Lal Mahato,
resident of Netotiril, P.O. & P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Seraikella-
Kharsawan, State- Jharkhand, presently residing at Q. No. -B-
21, Budhijam Colony, PO-Orient, PS.- Orient Thana, District-
Jharsugora, State- Odhisha (Orissa) ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rumi Kumari Mahato @ Rumi Mahato, wife of Ramkrishna
Mahato @ Ram Krishna Mahato daughter of Tarapado Mahato,
resident of Netotiril, P.O. & P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Seraikella-
Kharsawan, State- Jharkhand, presently residing at
Umeshnagar, PO- Bhadudih, PS- Chandil, District- Seraikella-
Kharsawan, State -Jharkhand ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A. P. P.
For the O. P. No. 2 : Md. Parwez Ahmed Khan, Advocate
.....
ORAL ORDER IN COURT
05/12.06.2025 The present Criminal Revision No. 1228 of 2022
has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order
dated 12.10.2022 passed by Sri Rajkamal Mishra, learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan in
Original Maintenance Case No. 17 of 2019 by which the
petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. by the opposite
party no. 2 has been allowed and direction has been given to the
petitioner to pay Rs. 14,000/- per month to the opposite party
no. 2- wife namely Rumi Kumari Mahato @ Rumi Mahato as
maintenance from the date of filing of an application.
2. I. A. No. 6344 of 2025 has been filed on 07.05.2025
on behalf of both the sides by way of a joint compromise
application.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that I. A. No. 6344 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of both the
sides by way of a joint compromise application. It is further
submitted that the case has been compromised between the
petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and there is no dispute
and hence, I. A. No. 6344 of 2025 may be allowed and the
Criminal Revision No. 1228 of 2022 may be disposed of on the
said compromise.
5. On the other hand, no objection has been raised by the
learned counsel for the State.
6. Md. Parwez Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the
O. P. No. 2 also raised no objection and has submitted that the
case has been compromised between the parties and also
admitted the factum of compromise between the petitioner and
the O. P. No. 2. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2
has no grievance against the petitioner and hence, appropriate
order may be passed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 2 and perused the I. A. No. 6344 of 2025.
8. Para- 2 to 7 of the I. A. No. 6344 of 2025, filed on
behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, read as
follows:-
"Para-2:- That it is humbly stated that the parties hereto have
quite sensibly thought over the issue of future prospects
including both impact and benefits and have arrived on
conclusion that it would be better that the petitioner and
opposite party no. 2 may get settled the dispute.
Para-3:- That it is humbly stated and submitted that during
pendency of this case, the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 as
well as petitioners have entered into a compromise on the
intervention of well wishers and close relatives and, they have
compromised the matter among themselves and they does not
want to proceed with cases against each other.
Para-4:- That it is humbly stated and submitted that the
petitioner has agreed to make a payment of a total sum of Rs.
15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) to the opposite party no. 2
(Rumi Kumari Mahato @ Rumi Mahato) towards her lifetime
maintenance.
Para-5:-That the parties in order to bring an end to the litigation
between the parties have agreed to compromise the matter as
there is no dispute between them.
Para-6:- That accordingly, the instant interlocutory application
for joint compromise is being filed by the petitioner and the
opposite party no. 2 and making a joint prayer that appropriate
order.
Para-7:- That custody of their daughter is remain with the First
Part and Second Party will never claim the custody of the
daughter in future and it is further agreed by the Opp,. Party No
2, that Opp. Party No. 2 will bear all the educational expenses
of the daughter till the completion of her major age."
9. It transpires from the record that vide order dated
12.10.2022 passed by Sri Rajkamal Mishra, learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Original
Maintenance Case No. 17 of 2019, the petitioner has been
directed to pay Rs. 14,000/- per month to the opposite party no.
2- wife namely Rumi Kumari Mahato @ Rumi Mahato as
maintenance from the date of filing of an application.
10. It also transpires that the case has been compromised
between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and a joint
compromise petition has been filed by way of I. A. No. 6344 of
2025.
11. In view of the above fact and in the light of the joint
compromise petition filed by way of I. A. No. 6344 of 2025, the
order dated 12.10.2022 passed by Sri Rajkamal Mishra, learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Original
Maintenance Case No. 17 of 2019 is modified to the extent that
instead of paying maintenance amount of Rs. 14,000/- per
month to the opposite party no. 2- wife namely Rumi Kumari
Mahato @ Rumi Mahato as maintenance from the date of filing
of an application, the petitioner has already paid Rs. 15,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Lakh) to the opposite party no. 2 as one time
settlement in view of the compromise entered into between both
the sides and the petitioner is not required to pay now further an
amount of Rs. 14,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 in
light of the final settlement between the petitioner and the
opposite part no. 2.
12. However, it will be desirable that the petitioner can also
bear the expenses of their daughter till she attains her majority in
light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC
324.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision No. 1228 of 2022 is
allowed in terms of the compromise entered between the parties
and stands disposed of.
14. I. A. No. 6344 of 2025 is also allowed and stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
