Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kerketta vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 17 May, 2013
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision. No. 234 of 2013
Sunil Kerketta ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Another ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : M/s Ashok Kumar Pandey
Basant Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
------
2/ 17.05.2013Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18.1.2013, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Maintenance Case No. 139 of 2007, whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to his deserted wife.
The impugned order shows that opposite party No. 2 Jigyasa Devi, filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in the Court below claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. According to her case, the marriage was solemnized on 3.6.2006 and soon thereafter, she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and she was also pushed in the well on 9.6.2006, but she was rescued by the villagers. Even thereafter, she was living in the matrimonial home and ultimately, she was driven out from her matrimonial home on 2.8.2007. Claiming that she had no means to maintain herself and her husband was a Govt. employee and had sufficient income from salary, as also from landed property, she filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., for maintenance. The petitioner appeared in the Court below and filed his show cause and it is apparent that the marriage between the parties is an admitted fact in this case. It is stated by the petitioner that his wife is of quarrelsome nature and she had falsely implicated him in a criminal case for the alleged offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, in which, after investigation, the police had submitted final form. The petitioner denied the allegations, stating that the lady herself had left the matrimonial home, and accordingly, objected the prayer for maintenance.
The impugned order shows that three witnesses were examined by opposite party No. 2-wife and three witnesses were also examined on behalf of the petitioner in the Court below. The witnesses examined on behalf of the wife supported her case and they have claimed that the petitioner is a Govt. employee.
-2-This fact also finds admitted in the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses. According to the petitioner's case, he is only a Class IV employee in the Govt., getting the salary of about Rs. 6000/- per month, but he had not filed any document in support of his salary. The deposition of witness O.W. 3., examined on behalf of the petitioner has been brought on record as Annexure-4, who has deposed that on 9.6.2006 the opposite party No. 2 had tried to commit suicide by jumping in a well, but she was rescued.
The Court below, on consideration of the evidence on record, has found that the wife opposite party No. 2 has sufficient reasons for living separately and she had no means to support herself. The Court below has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a Class IV Govt. employee and also taking into consideration the salary of the petitioner as such an employee, has directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 5000/- per month, as maintenance to his deserted wife.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the evidence adduced by the petitioner's side in the Court below would show that the wife of the petitioner had left the matrimonial home herself and the allegations against the petitioner has been denied by the witnesses examined on his behalf. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the Court's finding that the wife of the petitioner had sufficient cause for living separately, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is only a Class IV employee and he is not in a position to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to his wife. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer submitting that there are sufficient materials on record to show the income of the petitioner and the Court below has come to the right finding that the wife of the petitioner had sufficient reason for living separately. Learned A.P.P. accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the impugned Judgment, I find that there is direct allegation by opposite party No. 2-wife, that she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry soon after the marriage and only after 6 days of the marriage, she was pushed in the well. This fact also stands corroborated by the evidence of O.W.3, who has stated that she had attempted to commit suicide. The witnesses examined -3- on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 have stated about the cruelty and torture meted out to the opposite party No. 2 and accordingly, I find that the Court below has come to the right conclusion that she has sufficient reason for living separately from her husband. The witnesses have also proved the fact that the Opp. Party No.2 has no means to maintain herself.
Admittedly, the petitioner is a Class IV grade Govt. employee and taking into consideration the salary of the Govt. employee of the lowest rank, the Court below has come to the finding that the salary of the petitioner was not less than Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner has not proved his pay slip in the Court. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the Court below has come to the right conclusion about the income of the petitioner and has directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to his deserted wife.
I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.