[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Jyoti Devi vs Rajeshwar Prasad @ Rinku on 16 March, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No.124 of 2025
-----
Jyoti Devi ... ... Appellant
Versus
Rajeshwar Prasad @ Rinku ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.D.K.Malityar,Advocate
-----
th
Order No.10/Dated: 16 March, 2026
1. Reference may be made to the order dated 19th February, 2026 by which
we have issued notice under Rule 393 of the Jharkhand High Court on
consideration of the conduct of the respondent-husband of committing
Contempt of Court as the respondent-husband who was present in the Court
on that date, has in a very arrogant manner stated before this Court that he is
not willing to make payment of maintenance amount rather he is ready to die.
2. Thereafter, this Court came to the conclusive finding that the amount of
maintenance which was directed to be paid by the learned Family Court,
Jamshedpur by order dated 11.6.2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case
No. 307 of 2019 for the sustenance of the appellant-wife and daughter taken
birth from the wedlock is Rs. 5,000/- i.e. Rs. 3,000/- for the appellant-wife
and Rs. 2000/- for their daughter but the same has not been paid as yet.
3. Today, the respondent-husband is present in the Court. Supplementary
show-cause has been filed stating inter alia particularly at paragraph no.6 that
he is willing to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of
his daughter, namely, Anuvesha Kumari, aged about 14 years.
4. This Court has posed a question that why he is ready to pay Rs. 2,000/-per
month in favour of the daughter only and why he does not want to pay the
amount which was directed to be paid in favour of the appellant-wife to the
tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for
the respondent-husband that the order of maintenance has been challenged by
filing Cr. Revision No. 917 of 2024.
5. The order passed in Cr. Revision No. 917 of 2024 has been placed before
this Court for its perusal.
6. This Court has gone through the aforesaid order and found that it is the
respondent-husband who has sought for a leave to approach the concerned
court by way of filing a petition under section 127 Cr.P.C. (now Section 146
of BNSS, 2023), in the changed circumstances of solemnization of second
marriage by the appellant-wife.
7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-husband that the petition under section 127 Cr.P.C. has been filed
and the case is being contested therein. On the other hand, Mr. Pran Pranay,
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-wife has denied the
statement of solemnization of second marriage by the appellant-wife rather
he has submitted that the respondent-husband has solemnized second
marriage and he is having a child from the second marriage.
8. This court, therefore, for the present, is refraining from passing the order
with respect to the quantum of amount of maintenance directed to be paid in
favour of the wife in view of the fact that the petition under section 127
Cr.P.C. has been filed which is also being contested by the appellant-wife.
9. So far as Rs. 2,000/- per month which was directed to be paid in favour of
the daughter has been admitted to be paid as per the statement made at Para -6
of the supplementary show-cause. The total amount which is to be paid from
the date of filing of Maintenance Case no. 307 of 2019, i.e., 16.12.2019 @
2,000/- per month in favour of the daughter, taken birth from the wedlock has
been calculated which comes to around Rs. 1,50,000/-.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -husband when
has asked from the respondent, physically present in the Court, he again has
said that he cannot make payment immediately rather the amount shall be paid
in six months.
11. The question of sustenance of the minor daughter, aged about 14 years, is
the issue and, as such, this Court cannot accept what has been stated by the
respondent that the amount shall be paid in six months.
12. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-
wife has submitted that the respondent-husband is working as Senior
Electrician under a contractor who has been engaged by the Tata Steel and
this fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-husband.
13. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the Tata Steel is to be impleaded
as a party through its Managing Director. The impleadment is necessary for
the purpose of deduction of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-from the
money which is to be paid to the contractor.
14. Let notice be issued to Tata Steel.
15. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel representing the Tata Steel waives
notice on behalf of Tata Steel.
16. Let necessary addition be made in the cause-title, during course of the day.
17. Let a copy of entire memo of appeal along with affidavits including the
order passed by this Court be handed over to Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned
counsel, by tomorrow, i.e., 17.3.2026 who shall file compliance report of this
order on the next date of hearing.
18. Let name of Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel be reflected in the
cause list.
19. List this case on 16.4.2026.
20. I.A. No.3131 of 2026 filed for acceptance of supplementary show cause is
dismissed as not pressed and, as such, disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Date: 16th March, 2026
KNR/
