Jharkhand High Court
Mukul Prasad vs Sangeeta Kumari on 19 July, 2016
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 892 of 2015
---
Mukul Prasad son of Janak Deo Prasad permanent
resident of Karai village, PO Karai, PS Karai,
District Nalanda (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Sangeeta Kumari wife of Mukul Prasad, daughter of
Sri Shrawan Kumar resident of Qr. No. C.D. 374,
Sector III, PO Dhurwa, PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi
... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mrs. Sangeeta Kumari, in person
---
9/19.07.2016Heard Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Sangeeta Kumari, who is appearing in person.
This application is directed against the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case No. 149 of 2012 by which the application preferred by the opposite party under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 09.07.2015 has not considered the evidence of the petitioner or the income of the petitioner and in fact on misinterpreting and misconstruing the statement of the petitioner such amount has been awarded. It has been submitted that in course of proceeding only the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 has been examined as witness, but the learned court below has mentioned about the father of the petitioner of admitting that he has 7 Bighas of land; and that the petitioner is engaged in Karimpur Power Grid at Aligarh and is getting Rs. 60,000/- per month. He submits that the evidence of the petitioner does not suggest for a moment that the petitioner was or is earning Rs. 60,000/- per month. It has been submitted that in fact the opposite party has given 3 different versions with respect to the income status of the petitioner in the three cases which are going -2- between the parties i.e., a complaint case, a matrimonial title suit as well as proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel further submits that in the matrimonial title suit, the opposite party no. 2 has given an absolutely different version in which she has admitted that the petitioner is unemployed. It has been submitted that without considering the actual facts in the case by relying on a fictitious figure of Rs. 60,000/- per month, the impugned order has been passed granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party.
Mrs. Sangeeta Kumari, who has appeared in person has supported the impugned order and has referred to depositions of the present case as well as the depositions in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 12 of 2011. She has submitted that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of the petitioner and his father with respect to the experience certificate as well as various other issues. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had admitted in his deposition that he has spent almost Rs. 5 lacs as litigation costs which would substantiate the assertion that the petitioner is earning a handsome amount and therefore, the Award of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party is justified. It has also been submitted that in spite of giving repeated opportunities to the petitioner no oral evidence could be produced by him and in fact such action on the part of the petitioner leads credence to the fact that the petitioner is not coming out with the truth with respect to his income.
It appears from the evidence of the P.W. 1 that no where it has been stated that the petitioner earns an amount of Rs. 60,000/- per month as salary. Even the opposite party had failed to point out from the evidence of P.W. 1, the basis of the learned court below to come to such finding. It further appears that in this particular case only two witnesses were examined - the petitioner and the opposite party. Reference has also been made about the admission made by the father of the petitioner that he is getting a salary of Rs. 60,000/- per month and that he has 7 Bighas of land. It further appears that in paragraph 39 of his evidence mention has been made about the joint family property of 5 Bighas of land from which there is an earning of Rs. 16,000/- per annum, but in the impugned judgment the same has been mentioned as Rs. 15,000/- per month.
-3-The circumstances enumerated above do suggest that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month which had been awarded in favour of the opposite party was based on misconception as the record do not suggest the availability of such grounds which led the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi to direct the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month.
Considering the aforesaid facts, the order dated 09.07.2015 passed in maintenance case no. 149 of 2012 being without appreciable reasons and passed on the facts which are not available on record is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and if necessary by taking further evidence and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the opposite party.
It is further directed that the learned court below shall complete the exercise as indicated above within a period of 3 months from the date a copy of this order is produced before it.
With these observations and directions, this application stands disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3