Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar Hansda Son Of Bhagmat Hansda ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 20 of 2024
Dilip Kumar Hansda son of Bhagmat Hansda aged about 43 years
Resident of Village-Banki, P.O-Barajuri, P.S-Ghatshila, District-
East Singhbhum-832303 ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Raymoni Hansda @ Raimuni Hansda @ Pratima Hansda wife of
Dilip Kumar Hansda and daughter of Salkhan Kisku, Resident of
Village-Sadakghutu, P.O. & P.S-Mosabani, District East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand-832103 .... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Advocate
: Md. Azam, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.2, Advocate
-----------
Oral Order in Court
05/Dated:27th March, 2025
I.A. No.3965 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning
the delay of 21 days.
2. It appears that the instant Criminal Revision Application
has been posted in the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
on different dates i.e. on 24.06.2024 (Hon'ble Mrs. Justice
Anubha Rawat Choudhary), 29.07.2024 (Hon'ble Mrs. Justice
Anubha Rawat Choudhary) and 23.09.2024 (Justice Ratnaker
Bhengra as his Lordship then was). However, the said I.A.
No.3965 of 2024 has not been pressed.
3. Considering the fact that both the sides have appeared and
taking lenient view, the delay of 04 days in filing the instant
Criminal Revision Application is condoned.
4. Thus, I.A. No.3965 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed
of.
5. Heard Mr. A.K. Rashidi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned APP for the State and Mr.
Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
6. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
20.09.2023 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.307 of
2022 by Sri Gati Krishna Mishra, learned Additional Principal
Judge, Additional Family Court-2, JSR, (Camp Court Ghatsila)
by which the learned Additional Principal Judge has allowed
the application filed by the O.P. No.2- Raymoni Hansda @
Raimuni Hansda @ Pratima Hansda under Section 125 Cr.P.C
by directing the husband-petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- per
month as monthly maintenance amount.
7. During course of submission, learned counsel for both the
sides admitted and consented that the case be disposed of and
remitted back by giving direction to the Court below to dispose
the maintenance case within a period of four months but the
petitioner should continuously pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the
O.P. No.2 till disposal of the case.
8. It appears that the marriage between the petitioner and the
O.P. No.2 is admitted and there is no denial of relationship.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he
wants to lead evidence and contest the maintenance case at the
earliest as the case has been decided ex-parte.
10. It appears from the records of this case that the case has
been decided ex-parte and the petitioner could not cross-
examine the wife-O.P. No.2 and could not lead his evidence and
hence in the interest of justice and with the consent of both
sides, the judgment dated 20.09.2023 in Original Maintenance
Case No.307 of 2022 by Sri Gati Krishna Mishra, learned
Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-2, JSR,
(Camp Court Ghatsila) is set aside and case is remitted back to
the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family
Court-2, JSR, (Camp Court Ghatsila)/ or his Successor Court to
decide the matter afresh.
11. The learned Court below is further directed to permit the
husband-petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the O.P.
No.2-wife who has only examined AW-1, AW-2, AW-3 and
AW-4 namely Salkhan Kisku, Anil Kumar Kisku, Kumari Kuli
Kisku and Raymoni Hansda @ Raimuni Hansda @ Pratima
Hansda (i.e. the O.P. No.2) respectively and the Court below
shall further permit the husband-petitioner to produce his
witnesses in respect of his case and who may also be cross-
examined by the wife-O.P.No.2 before the learned Court below
by giving her reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses produced by the petitioner-husband. The O.P No.2-
wife will also be permitted to examine any other witness, if so
desire.
12. It is desirable that the case may be disposed of within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the
order.
13. In the meantime, the petitioner shall continuously pay
Rs.20,000/- per month to the O.P. No.2 till disposal of the case.
14. The Court below shall pass the final judgment without
being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court and the Court
below will be independent to decide the quantum of
maintenance in accordance with law after examining the
witnesses of both the sides.
15. The parties will be also at liberty to file their respective
assets and liabilities on affidavit as has been rendered in the case
of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC
324.
16. Thus, this Cr. Revision No.20 of 2024 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
17. I.A. No.2953 of 2024 is dismissed as not pressed for.
Pending I.A(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Saket/-
