Jharkhand High Court
Mr. Niraj Kumar Upadhyay @ vs Mrs. Rashmi Pandey ..... ... Opposite ... on 24 August, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 170 of 2021
Mr. Niraj Kumar Upadhyay @
Niraj Upadhyay @ Niraj Kumar Upadhyay ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Rashmi Pandey ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
: Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate.
------
08/ 24.08.2022 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 21.10.2020, passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 133 of 2019, by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi and pending in that court.
3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, the learned court has granted interim maintenance in favour of his wife and son to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- per month. He submits that the conduct of the O.P. No. 2 has been disclosed in the petition and in light of Sub-Section 4 of Section 125 Cr.P.C., she is not entitled for any maintenance. He took the court to different documents of the O.P. No. 2 and submits that there is sufficient materials against her to attract Sub-Section 4 of Section 125 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the O.P. No. 2 is dishonest litigant, as such she is not entitled for any relief. He relied in the case of Dalip Prasad Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the petitioner has committed forgery and interpolated the signature of O.P. No. 2. He submits that counter affidavit has been filed, which has been sworn by the O.P. No. 2 and her signature is also there, however, the said signature is different from the annexures, annexed with the petition and same is the position in the vakalatnama filed by the O.P. No. 2. He relied in the case of Mannava Satyawati & Ors. Versus Mannava Malleswara Rao & Ors. reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 259.
5. In view of such submission, the court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that the learned Court is still ceased with the matter and has not decided the case finally and only passed the order of interim maintenance. Moreover, there are disputed question of facts which can be appreciated more effectively by the original court. It is open to the parties to demonstrate their case in the final disposal of the maintenance case, pending before the learned court, as there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the original court is in more efficient position to decide such disputed arguments of the parties.
6. As such, this petition is disposed of with the liberty to both the parties to make out their case for adjudication before the learned court. It is also open to the parties to make endeavor for early disposal of the case. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-