Patna High Court
Ranjit Singh vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 13 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.914 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-
======================================================
Ranjit Singh S/o Umesh Singh resident of Village - Mahuain, P.O. - Malpa,
P.S. - Guraru, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Sunita Devi W/o Ranjit Singh D/o Anugrah Singh resident of Village -
Mahuain, P.O. - Malpa, P.S. - Guraru, District - Gaya. At present resident of
Village - Jinoria, P.O. - Khairadip, P.S. - Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Saket Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-03-2023
Learned senior counsel Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh
alongwith Mr. Saket Kumar Singh, counsels for petitioner and
learned counsel for the State Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, in-charge
A.P.P. present.
The present Cr. Revision application has been filed
against the order dated 03.08.2016 passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Misc. Case No. 66 of 2013
by which the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per
month to O.P. No. 2 from the date of filing of the application of
maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Counsel for petitioner submits that O.P. No. 2 is the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.914 of 2016 dt.13-03-2023
legally married wife of the petitioner. The marriage was
solemnized in the year 2006. Counsel submits that O.P. No. 2
has filed a Misc. Case No. 96 of 2012 for maintenance and the
same was dismissed. Counsel also submits that O.P. No. 2 did
not appear before the Court in spite of sufficient time provided
to her. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner
is a law abiding person and he is paying Rs.750/- per month to
O.P. No. 2 as maintenance in compliance of the order passed in
Cr. Misc. No. 50085 of 2013 at the time of bail. Counsel further
submits that since the maintenance case was earlier dismissed
filed by O.P. No. 2, then the second maintenance case being
Misc. Case No. 66 of 2013 whose final order dated 03.08.2016
has been challenged before the present Cr. Revision has not
maintainable and barred by res-judicata.
Counsel for the State submits that from the order
under challenge, it transpires that the previous maintenance
Misc. Case No. 96 of 2012 was dismissed by the Court due to
non-appearance and no order has been passed on merit and,
therefore, it shall not operate as res-judicata.
Counsel further submits that order impugned is not
an ex-parte order. He further submits that sufficient notices were
issued to the petitioner and due to his non-appearance, Misc.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.914 of 2016 dt.13-03-2023
Case No. 66 of 2013 was fixed ex-parte on 22.01.2015 and the
case was fixed for orders after arguments but the counsel for
O.P. (present petitioner) appeared and on his request, the matter
was recalled. An opportunity was granted to O.P. (present
petitioner) to file show cause. A petition of O.P. (present
petitioner) was allowed on 13.04.2016 with a condition to the
O.P. (present petitioner) that he shall pay Rs.1,500/- as cost to
the applicant but O.P. (present petitioner) was failed to comply
this order and as such the case was again fixed for arguments.
Counsel for the State further submits that during
arguments, the counsel for O.P. (present petitioner) has filed his
attendance but did not turn up in this case and only thereafter,
the record was put up for orders on merit.
In this view of the matter, there is no need of any
interference in the order impugned.
Upon specific query from the Court that present
revision application has been filed under Section 19(4) of the
Family Court Act, 1984 in which it has been clearly mentioned
that High Court may interfere in the order on the points of
correctness, legality and propriety of the order. Answering these
questions, learned senior counsel fairly submits that such points
are not present in the present case.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.914 of 2016 dt.13-03-2023
Learned senior counsel further submits that the
petitioner is ready to keep O.P. No. 2 as wife.
From the record, it transpires that the direction of
payment of Rs.5,000/- per month was made from the date of
filing of the application. The date of filing of application was
14.05.2013 and today about 118 months have lapsed and as
such, there is in total Rs.5,90,000/- dues are against the
petitioner payable to O.P. No. 2.
Learned senior counsel submits that due to lapse of
time, the payable amount is huge and he offers to pay those
amounts in 3 easy installments. Learned senior counsel submits
that petitioner is ready to pay Rs.5,90,000/- in 3 installments
and the current amount Rs.5,000/- per month. The installments
shall be Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,90,000/-. He shall
pay the first installment within 15 days from the date of
receiving of the order before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Aurangabad, second and third installments he shall pay within a
span of one month and two months thereafter. He shall continue
to pay Rs.5,000/- every month.
The Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad is
directed to take steps according to provisions laid down under
Cr.P.C. issuing process under Form 18 or 19 or both (Scheduled
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.914 of 2016 dt.13-03-2023
II of the Cr.P.C.) only after time granted by this Court.
With the aforesaid observations, the present
application stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
sadique/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
