Patna High Court
Dharam Deo Jha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No 279 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-
======================================================
Dharam Deo Jha Son of Late Mahi Nath Jha, resident of village - Dhingari,
P.S. Bardaha, District - Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pushpa Devi @ Juli, Wife of Sri Dharam Deo Jha, Daughter of Sri Shiv
Kant Thakur,
3. Nidhi Kumari, daughter of Sri Dharam Deao Jha, Both resident of Mohalla -
Prabhat Colony, P.S. K. Hat, District - Purnea
4. The Deputy Regional Head Officer, Bank of Baroda, Regional Officer,
Bhavnagar, Gujarat
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Amit Kumar Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr Asharaf Ansari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 12-08-2024
This revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 20.12.2016 passed
by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in
Maintenance Case No 171 of 2007/CIS No 0000793 of 2013
whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court allowed the
application submitted under Section 125 of the Cr P C by opposite
party No 2 and directed the petitioner to pay a monthly
maintenance amount of Rs 8,000/- to opposite party No 2 and Rs
5,000/- to opposite party No 3 from the month of December, 2016.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.279 of 2017 dt.12-08-2024
2/4
2 Heard both the learned counsel and perused the
impugned order as well as other materials available on record.
3 Perusal of the impugned order shows that in his
written statement, petitioner has admitted the fact that opposite
party No 2 is his legally wedded wife. It further shows that after
filing the application under Section 125 of the Cr P C, on
24.11.2009
, a compromise took place between the parties and as
pleaded by opposite party No 2-wife, the petitioner had taken her
in his house. There she stayed for some period and during that
period, she conceived and on 09.08.2010, opposite party No 3,
namely, Nidhi Kumari was born.
4 Contrary to that, the petitioner pleaded before the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court that after the compromise,
both the petitioner and opposite party No 2, on 24.11.2009, were
going to board the bus and on way, brother of opposite party No 2
and one unknown person forcibly took away opposite party No 2
with them and according to the statement of petitioner, at that time,
opposite party No 2 was pregnant. Therefore, it was the case of
the petitioner before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court that
opposite party No 3 is not his legitimate child and opposite party
No 2 is leading adulterous life and due to that, opposite party No 3
born.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.279 of 2017 dt.12-08-2024
5 During the course of recording his statement, the
petitioner made an allegation that opposite party No 2 is leading
adulterous life with one Pankaj Kumar prior to their marriage but
in his written statement, the petitioner has not made any pleading
in this regard. If opposite party No 2 was leading adulterous life
with Pankaj Kumar prior to the marriage then certainly this fact
was mentioned or pleaded by the petitioner in his written
statement.
6 Perusal of the impugned order further shows that on
27.01.2010, a written intimation was given by opposite party No 2
that after compromise, she went with the petitioner on 24.11.2009
and resided with the petitioner for some period and then again,
petitioner left for his work place leaving opposite party No 2.
Thereafter, on 20.03.2010, the petitioner submitted his reply of
that application and for the first time, in his reply, he disclosed the
fact before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court that on
24.11.2009 when the petitioner went to take opposite party No 2
from the Court, opposite party No 2 left the petitioner on way and
fled away with her lover. If so, the petitioner has not explained
why he has not informed this fact to the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court on 24.11.2009 or immediately thereafter.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.279 of 2017 dt.12-08-2024
7 Considering the entire evidence available on record,
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court rightly arrived on the
conclusion that opposite party No 2 is the legally wedded wife of
petitioner; since the petitioner made an allegation against opposite
party No 2 that she is leading adulterous life but this fact has not
been established by him; he further questioned the legitimacy of
opposite party No 3 but this fact has also not been established by
the petitioner, therefore, considering the evidence available on
record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court further rightly
arrived at the conclusion that opposite party No 3 is the legitimate
child of the petitioner.
8 Thus, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court
rightly passed the order of maintenance in favour of opposite
parties No 2 and 3.
9 I do not find any merit in this revision petition.
Accordingly, this revision petition is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 08.07.2024
Uploading Date 12.08.2024
Transmission Date 12.08.2024
