Jharkhand High Court
Moti Pandit @ Mohit Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 961 of 2017
....
Moti Pandit @ Mohit Pandit ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Munni Kumari ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Roshan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A. P. P.
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
.....
I.A. No. 9067 of 2017
18/05.05.2025 I.A. No. 9067 of 2017 has been filed under Section
5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 383 days
in filing the instant Cr. Revision No. 961 of 2017.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is delay of 383 days in filing the
Cr. Revision No. 961 of 2017. It is submitted that the
petitioner resides at remote village and was not aware of the
impugned order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad and his financial
condition was not good and after taking adviced from well
wishers, he has filed this Criminal Revision Application after
delay of 383 days and as such, delay of 383 days in preferring
the instant Criminal Revision Application may be condoned.
4. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel
for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the prayer and have
submitted that reasons assigned by the petitioner is not
sufficient and prayer for condoning the delay of 383 may be
rejected.
5. From perusal of I.A. No. 9067 of 2017, it appears
that delay has not been properly explained. It also appears
from the records that the petitioner has performed
2nd marriage with another lady also.
6. However, considering the fact that the case is
pending since last seven years before this Court and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay
of 383 days in preferring the instant Cr. Revision No. 961 of
2017 is, hereby, condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.
5,000/- to the opposite party no. 2. The amount of Rs. 5,000/-
must be deposited within ten days from today.
7. Thus, I.A. No. 9067 of 2017 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 that the arrears of due approx. amount of
Rs. 10,80,000/- towards arrears of maintenance amount and
till date the petitioner is not being paid maintenance amount.
9. It appears from the impugned judgment that the
petitioner has performed 2nd marriage with Mohini Kumari
and whose statement was recorded in G. R. Case No. 3644 of
2014.
10. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to
pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 for the present
out of arrears of Rs. 10,80,000/-.
11. In the meantime, the Director General of Police,
State of Jharkhand is directed to request the Director General
of Police, State of Bihar to ascertain the properties of the
petitioner through the Superintendent of Police, Purnea in the
State of Bihar as well as the Officer In-charge of the
concerned Police Station in the District of Purnea where the
petitioner is presently residing.
12. It will be desirable that both the State Authorities
may co-operate and furnish necessary information.
13. In the meantime, the petitioner is also directed to file
his affidavit with regard to Assets and Liabilities in light of
the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2)
SCC 324
14. Put up this case on 02.07.2025.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director
General of Police, State of Jharkhand, the Director General of
Police, State of Bihar and Superintendent of Police, Purnea
for the needful.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
