Jharkhand High Court
Pinki Devi Wife Of Late Deepak Prasad ... vs Gopal Prasad Keshri Son Of Late Punit ... on 20 March, 2025
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No.42 of 2021
------
Pinki Devi wife of Late Deepak Prasad Keshri, daughter of
Prahlad Kumar Keshri, resident of Shiv Mandir Road, Jharia,
P.O. and P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad.
------- Appellant
Versus
Gopal Prasad Keshri son of Late Punit Prasad Keshri, resident of
Kumhartoli, in front of Devi Mandap, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S.
Sadar Jhanda Chowk, District Hazaribag.
------ Respondent
With
First Appeal No.37 of 2021
------
Gopal Prasad Keshri son of Late Punit Prasad Keshri, resident of
Kumhartoli, in front of Devi Mandap, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S.
Sadar Jhanda Chowk, District Hazaribag.
------- Appellant
Versus
Pinki Devi wife of Late Deepak Prasad Keshri, resident of Shiv
Mandir Road, Jharia, P.O. and P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad,
(Jharkhand). ------
Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
In FA 42/2021
For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent : None
In FA 37/2021
For the Appellant : None
For the Respondent : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv.
-------
JUDGMENT
Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
20.03.2025 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant in First Appeal No.42 of 2021. None appears on behalf
of the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
decree dated 24.03.2021 (decree signed on 05.04.2021 passed
by Smt. Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned Additional Principal
Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No.
242 of 2018 by which the quantum of maintenance awarded to
the appellant has been contended to be on the lower side
which has led the appellant to prefer the present appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience both parties are
referred to in this order as per their status before the learned
trial court.
4. The plaintiff (appellant herein) had filed a Suit
under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
1956 claiming maintenance for herself and in the plaint which
has been filed it has been stated inter alia that the marriage of
the plaintiff was solemnized with the son of the defendant
namely Deepak Prasad Keshri on 16.07.2013 as per Hindu
rites and customs and after the marriage was solemnized both
started residing together at Hazaribag. Out of the said wedlock,
a female child namely Pridhi Keshri was born on 29.06.2014.
It has been alleged that the in-laws of the plaintiff started
committing torture upon the plaintiff on account of the fact
that she had given birth to a female child and had also
demanded dowry. The plaintiff was assaulted and ousted by
her in-laws from her matrimonial house on 30.06.2015 along
with her minor daughter and having no alternative she had to
return back to her parental home where she is residing till
now. In spite of the efforts made by the parents and other
relatives of the plaintiff to settle the issue, the same failed and
ultimately under compelled circumstances the plaintiff filed a
criminal case being C.P. Case No. 884/2016 under Section
498A I.P.C and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against her in-laws which is still pending. It has been averred
that unfortunately the husband of the plaintiff namely Deepak
Prasad Keshri died on 16.03.2016 due to cancer and when on
getting such news the plaintiff went to her matrimonial house
she was not allowed to enter. It has also been stated that the
property left by the deceased husband of the plaintiff is worth
more than a crore besides the ancestral and self-acquired
property by the defendant and the defendant has an income of
more than Rs.2 lakhs per month from the said property. It has
been claimed that the defendant had retained all the Stridhan
and she does not have any source of income to maintain
herself as well as her daughter. In such circumstances a claim
of Rs.30,000/- per month has been made towards
maintenance. The plaintiff had filed Maintenance Case No.
489/2017 under Section 125 Cr.P.C and Original Suit
(Maintenance) Case No. 136/2018 against the defendant but
both have been withdrawn on 08.03.2018 and 03.04.2018
respectively with the liberty to the plaintiff to file a proper suit,
consequent to which the present suit has been filed.
5. On being noticed the defendant had appeared and
filed a written statement in which the assertions made by the
plaintiff in her plaint has been denied. It has been stated
therein that the treatment towards the cancer of his son led to
a huge expenditure having been incurred by him and in fact
the father of the plaintiff is a man of means as he has
buildings, properties, shops and the plaintiff does have a share
in the said properties. It has also been stated that the plaintiff
had received an amount of Rs. 4.50 lakhs from the defendant
in connection with the criminal case instituted by the plaintiff
and therefore a prayer has been made for dismissing the suit.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed for adjudication:-
I. Whether the suit, as framed is maintainable?
II. Has the plaintiff got a valid cause of action for the
suit?
III. Whether plaintiff is entitled to receive maintenance
amount from defendant?
IV. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any other relief or
reliefs?
7. The plaintiff in support of her contentions has led
oral evidence in the form of the plaintiff who has been
examined as P.W.1 and the father of the plaintiff namely
Prahlad Kumar Keshri as P.W.2.
8. The defendant has only examined himself as D.W.1.
The defendant has also exhibited the certified copy of the order
passed in C.P. Case No. 884 of 2016 and the certified copy of
the judgment passed in C.P. Case No. 884 of 2016.
9. On consideration of the oral as well as the
documentary evidence, vide judgment and decree dated
24.03.2021 (decree signed on 05.04.2021), the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad
has awarded an amount of Rs. 3000/- per month to the
plaintiff from the date of the order and being aggrieved with the
quantum of maintenance so awarded, the plaintiff has
preferred the present appeal.
10. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Birender
Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant
that though the claim of the plaintiff was for payment of Rs.
30,000/- per month and despite the plaintiff's witnesses
having stated about the ancestral property which runs into
crores which is in possession of the defendant, the appellant
has been awarded only an amount of Rs.3000/- per month. It
has further been submitted that the learned trial court has
committed an error of law in not awarding the amount of
maintenance from the date of the application, rather the same
has been allowed from the date of the order which has
seriously prejudiced the plaintiff/appellant. It has further been
submitted that the minor daughter of the plaintiff/appellant
stays with her and her pitiable condition of having been forced
to stay at her parental house has not been appropriately
considered by the learned trial court while awarding a meagre
amount of Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance. In support of
his contention that the amount of maintenance so awarded
should be from the date of the application preferred by the
plaintiff which is since 05.04.2018 the learned counsel has
referred to the case of Rajnesh versus Neha and another
reported in (2021) 2 SCC, 324.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent has not
appeared to contest the present appeal despite repeated calls.
12. Before embarking on an analysis of the rival
contentions as enumerated in the plaint and the written
statement apart from the evidence of the witnesses it would be
apt to refer to the case of Rajnesh versus Neha & Anr.
(supra), more particularly to the following :-
"109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the
divergent views of different High Courts on the date
from which maintenance must be awarded. Even
though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the court
to grant maintenance either from the date of application
or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) CrPC, it
would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the
date of application in all cases, including Section 125
CrPC. In the practical working of the provisions relating
to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay
in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance
for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests
of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded
from the date of the application."
13. It has been observed in Rajnesh versus Neha
(supra) that though a judicial discretion has been conferred
upon the court to grant maintenance either from the date of
application or from the date of the order, it would be
appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application
in all cases. However, as it seems from the present case the
claim of the plaintiff appellant is of awarding the maintenance
from 05.04.2018 i.e. the date on which the application for
maintenance was preferred by the plaintiff. However, it has
not been denied by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff/appellant that pursuant to an order passed in A.B.P
No.1750/2016 arising out of C.P. Case No.884/2016 an
amount of 4,50,000/- was already extended to the plaintiff by
the defendant which according to the learned counsel for the
plaintiff/appellant has been kept in fixed deposit in the name
of the daughter of the plaintiff. This, in fact, has safeguarded
the plaintiff from destitution and vagrancy and therefore the
learned trial court has, while awarding the maintenance
amount from the date of the order, given appropriate reasons
with respect to the amount which was extended to the plaintiff
pursuant to the hearing of A.B.P. No. 1750 of 2016
14. So far as the claim of the plaintiff with respect to
the quantum of maintenance so awarded as it has been
claimed that the defendant is a man of means having huge
property and therefore an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month
would be appropriate for the maintenance of plaintiff and her
daughter, it seems that no documentary evidence has been
brought on record in support of such contentions. The
assertions made by the plaintiff in the plaint as well as by her
as a witness and her father seems to be vague and general in
nature not supported by any documentary evidence or any
other evidence which would lead the Court to come to a
conclusion that the quantum of maintenance so awarded to
the plaintiff is on the lower side.
15. We, therefore, negate both the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant
with respect to quantum of maintenance as well as with
respect to the maintenance to be awarded from the date of the
application and not the date of the order and since appropriate
reasonings have been assigned by the learned trial court while
awarding the amount of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month
from the date of the order, we do not find any reasons to
entertain this appeal and consequently this appeal stands
dismissed.
First Appeal no.37 of 2021
None appears on behalf of the appellant, though Mr.
Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent is present.
Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed for non-
prosecution.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Shamim/-
