Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar Sinha @ Mukesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2024
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1885 of 2018
---------
1. Mukesh Kumar Sinha @ Mukesh Kumar
2. Niranjan Kumar Sinha
3. Sanjay Kumar Sinha
4. Prabhat Kumar Sinha ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rakhi Sinha ... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
: Mr. Suman Ghosh, Adv.
---------
JUDGMENT
CA.V. on 25.04.2024 Pronounced on 19/12/2024 This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf petitioners by challenging the judgment dated 25.09.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2018 by Sri Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary, learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed whereby affirming the order dated 31.01.2018 passed in C.P. Case No. 2006 of 2012 ( T.R. No. 858 of 2018 ) by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in the case filed under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( hereinafter to be referred as the 'D. V. Act' in short).
2. The case, in brief, is that the opposite party no.2 filed C.P. Case No. 2006 of 2012 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, stating therein that she was married with Mukesh Sinha (i.e. the petitioner No.1) on 10.05.2001 at Vikash Nagar, Dhanbad, as per Hindu Rites and Customs and blessed with one son Aniket, but, the accused persons 1 started cruelty mental and physical for unlawful demand for transfer of entire movable and immovable properties of her mother to Mukesh Sinha, when father of opposite party no.2 died in March, 1979 left behind her mother and another sister Reva Kumari. It is further stated that the opposite party no.2 came to her home in November, 2001, but the petitioner no.1used to visit Maika of opposite party no.2 at Bhuli and at Sikandra and by giving false allurement, lead conjugal life and as a result of which on male child was born on 28.03.2004 at Central Hospital, Jagjiwan Nagar, Dhanbad, by operation, but, expenses were not borne by the petitioner no.1 and lastly Mukesh Kumar Sinha i.e. the petitioner no.1 refused to maintain wife and son. Thereafter Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 362 of 2004 was filed by the O.P. No. 2 under section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act for Judicial Separation in the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad and after compromise, the parties agreed to restore conjugal relation and maintain family. The Family Court, Dhanbad had passed an order of interim alimony under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act of Rs. 1500/- per month, but, husband stopped payment of alimony after some days. In the meantime, the son developed heart diseases and he was admitted to AIIMS, New Delhi, and after operation, he was cured and Rs. 2.50 lakh was spent. However, the husband (i.e. the petitioner No. 1) refused to pay a single farthing and had also not visited Delhi to see his ailing son and money was arranged by the O.P. No. 2 after selling land of Sikandra and taking help from her relatives and her son is still undergoing expensive treatment at an interval of three months, but, husband has refused to provide monetary help, medical treatment, education and shelter.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel O.P. No. 2.
24. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2018 and the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Complaint Case No. 2006 of 2012, filed by the wife - O.P. No. 2 of the petitioner No. 1 Mukesh Kumar Sinha @ Mukesh Kumar, is not maintainable. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2 had voluntarily gone to matrimonial home in the year 2001 itself, however in the year 2004 itself she had filed case for Judicial Separation and further case was filed in the year 2012 under the provision of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, only to harass and humiliate the petitioners. It is submitted that the learned Courts below failed to consider the fact that the petitioner No. 1 wants and is always ready and willing to settle the disputes and to keep his wife and child with full honour and dignity and as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the wife -O.P. No. 2 had make false statement about non-co-operation of her husband in treatment of her son and he was present in treatment of his son although the evidence shows that the petitioner No. 1 Mukesh Kumar Sinha @ Mukesh Kumar was not present at AIIMS in course of treatment. It is submitted that the O.P. No. 2 wants to reside with her mother, as there is no male member in her family. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 used to earn Rs.26,000/- per month and hence medical expenses of Rs. 91,423.50/- could not be directed to be paid by him. It is submitted that the learned Court belows did not consider the ambit of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 under section 20 of the said Act which speaks about medical expenses. It is submitted that the learned Court below i.e. the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had not given any opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence in spite of filing of petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C. which was 3 dismissed later on as not maintainable. It is submitted that the approach of the learned Court below to given half of the salary of the petitioner to the O.P. No. 2 to meet the ends of justice is not correct. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 has paid handsome amount to the O.P. No. 2 in the year 2007 on different occasions. It is submitted that there is no domestic violence under section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 committed by the petitioner because the wife -the O.P. No 2 had voluntarily left her matrimonial home with her son. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court had also failed to consider the case of the petitioners properly and the learned Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal by reducing the maintenance amount of Rs.5, 000/- to Rs.4, 000/- per month. It is submitted that there is no physical abuse and no violence in the body of the O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 had paid Rs. 91,423.50 and also paid Rs. 61,000/- to the O.P. No. 2 in compliance of the order passed by the learned Courts below. It is submitted that the direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 is excessive one and illegal order and liable to set-aside. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court below merely reduced the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month which is also illegal and thus impugned orders passed by the learned Court may be set-aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, the learned Special P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are fit and proper and no inference is required. It is submitted that this is the case of neglect of wife and child by the petitioner No. 1 and his family members i.e. the petitioner No. 2 to 4 respectively. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 had neglected O.P. No. 2 and her son and was not present at the time of treatment of her son at AIIMs, New Delhi. Thus this 4 Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and hence, this Criminal Revision may be dismissed.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality in impugned judgment and order passed by both the learned Courts below. It is submitted that argument of the petitioner is misconceived one. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 and other family members of petitioner have thoroughly neglected O.P. No. 2 after the marriage and even after giving birth to son by O.P. No. 2 but the petitioner No. 1 had not paid any expenses. It is submitted that although, the son of O.P.No. 2 had undergone open heart surgery but the petitioners were absent and the petitioner No. 1 had not taken care of the son of O.P. No. 2 and the entire expenses were borne by the family members of O.P. No.2. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 had not paid Rs. 61,000/- towards medical expenses of the son of the O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that there is no documents to show payment of medical expenses of Rs. 91,000/- by the petitioners. It is submitted that para 10 of the Trial Court Judgment (i.e. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate) fully reveals that the case of domestic violence is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that now after passing the best period of her life alone for more than 20 years, now the petitioner No. 1 has come to take the plea for keeping her wife and children only from the payment of maintenance order. The learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Shalu Ojha Vs. Prashant Ojha in Criminal Appeal No. 2070 of 2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2 has examined herself as A.W. 2 and she has fully supported her case and evidence of the O.P. No. 2 was also supported and corroborated by the evidence of A.W. 1 and A.W. 3 namely Priti Sharan and Kusum Prasad respectively and hence, this Criminal Revision may be dismissed.
57. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission made by both the sides.
8. It transpires that the O.P. No. 2 i.e. wife had filed one C.P. No. 2006 of 2012 under section 12 of D.V. Act against the petitioners on 30.08.2012 in the prescribed format -11 for passing protection order under section 18, residence order under section 19 and to pay monetary relief under section 20/21 and directing the respondent - petitioner to grant compensation under section 22 of the D.V. Act.
9. It is stated that the O.P.No. 2 was married with the petitioner No. 1 on 10.05.2001 at Dhanbad, Vikash Nagar as per Hindu Right and Custom and marriage was consummated and they have been blessed with one son Aniket aged around seven (07) years. However the marriage could not continue after committing criminal offence by the petitioners and O.P. No. 2 was subjected to cruelty and various inhuman methods physically and mentally for the demand and to get the entire movable and immovable landed properties be transferred to his name through the mother of the O.P. No. 2 because the father of O.P. No. 2 already had died in March 1979, leaving behind the O.P. No. 2 and his sister and her mother and there is no male member in the family and only landed properties left by her by the deceased father.
In the meantime, one minor son of O.P. No. 2 become very weak and was abnormal from beginning and from lack of medicine, he got complicated and he was admitted to AIIMs, New Delhi, where he was treated and she had paid medical cost of Rs. 2.50 lakhs but the husband-the petitioner No. 1 refused to pay any amount. After three (03) months O.P. No.2 had taken him at AIIMs, New Delhi and hence necessary order be passed for providing the monthly help and medical 6 treatment, Education and settler under the provision of D.V. Act.
10. The petitioner had filed his show cause and has refuted the claim of the O.P. No. 2 by stating that he had never neglected his wife -O.P. No. 2 and he is still ready to keep his wife and he had never tortured and demanded dowry a money. He is still ready and willing to keep his wife and son.
11. The wife -O.P. No. 2 in support of her case got examined five (5 witnesses) who are as follows:-
(i) A.W. 1 is Priti Sharan i.e. the mother of the O.P. No. 2,
(ii) A.W. 2 is Rakhi Sinha i.e. the O.P. No. 2 herself ,
(iii) A.W. 3 is Kusum Prasad (i.e. sister of O.P. No. 2),
(iv) A.W. 4 is Sri Niwas Prasad (i.e the Mousa of O.P. No. 2) and
(v) A.W. 5 is Madhu Sinha @ Madhubala Sinha( i.e. cousin sister )
12. The O.P. No. 2 (wife) in support of her case got marked the following as the Exhibits which are as follows:-
(i) Exhibit -1 is Discharge Summary Λ.Ι.Ι.Μ.s. New Delhi,
(ii) Exhibit -2 is Colour Doppler Echo Cardiography Resort B.C.C. L., Dhanbad ,
(iii) Exhibit -3 is total 17 (Seventeen) cash memo of AIIMS Delhi, Patna and Dhanbad,
(iv) Exhibit -4 is Colour Doppler Echo-cardiogram Report dated 21/07/2004,
(v) Exhibit -5 and 5/1are 2 Receipts of Sai Vishwam Sadan, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi,
(vi) Exhibit -6 is Discharge Certificate of Central Hospital Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad,
(vii) Exhibit -7 is Medical Records of Kurji Holy Family Hospital,
(viii) Exhibit - 8 is X-ray report and
(ix) Exhibit -9 to 9/4 are 5 letters of Mukesh Kumar Sinha to Complainant (Wife).
13. Neither the any witness was examined nor were any documents marked as Exhibit on behalf of the petitioners.
14. At this stage, it is relevant to notice here that the evidence of the wife- O.P. No. 2 was closed on 07.07.2015 and the case was fixed on 11.08.2015 for evidence of the petitioners 7 but no evidence was produced on behalf of the petitioners.
15. It further appears that even on 07.01.2016 and from 09.02.2016, 04.04.2016, 17.05.2016, 15.06.2016, 28.07.2016, 23.08.2016, 17.09.2016, 19.11.2016 and 21.01.2017 no evidence was produced on behalf of the petitioners as such the learned Court below i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad had closed the evidence of the petitioners on 21.01.2017 and the case was fixed for 'Argument'.
16. Thereafter on 17.02.2017 the petitioners had filed the petition under section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the order dated 21.01.2017 however vide order dated 20.04.2017, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had rejected the petition filed under section 311 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners and the case was fixed for Argument on 06.05.2017.
17. Thereafter the petitioners had filed the Criminal Revision No. 195 of 2017 before the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, as it reveals from the order sheet dated 06.09.2017 of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which is attached with the Lower Court Record.
18. Thereafter the case was again fixed for argument on 21.09.2017, 10.11.2017 respectively and finally impugned order passed on 31.01.2018.
19. In the meantime, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad vide order dated 10.01.2018 had allowed O.P. No. 2 (i.e. wife) petition filed under section 294 of Cr.P.C. for marking the documents as the Exhibits which were filed on 01.07.2017 and accordingly the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had marked Exhibit-1, Exhibit -2, Exhibit -3, Exhibit- 4, Exhibit -5, Exhibit -5/1, Exhibit-6, Exhibit-7, Exhibit-8 and Exhibit- 9 to Exhibit 9/4 respectively, under section 294 of the 8 Cr.P.C. on the application filed by the O.P. No. 2.
20. Thus, it is evident that the order rejecting the petition of the petitioners under section 311 of Cr.P.C. attained its finality and no further steps was taken after dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 195 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad .
21. It is further evident that despite give several dates, the petitioners had not adduced their evidence as such the plea of not arriving of the petitioners to adduce their evidence is not reliable as they have remained negligent for last several days.
22. Thereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing both sides, had passed the impugned order on 31.01.2018 and Trial Court judgment para 17 read as follows;-
"Para 17:- The applicant is entitled for the following reliefs:-
(a) the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 91,423.50 only (half of the amount for which vouchers etc. have been produced) as medical expenses to the applicant within two months of this order,
(b) the respondents are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as monetary relief to the applicant payable by the 5th day of each English calendar month,
(c) the respondents are prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence,
(d) the respondents are prohibiting from aiding or abating in the commission of acts of domestic violence,
(e) the respondents are prohibited from attempting to communicate in any form, whatsoever, with the aggrieved person, including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact,
(f) the respondent are prohibited from causing violence to the dependents, other relatives or any person who give the aggrieved 9 person assistance from domestic violence.
23. From the evidence of A.W. 2 i.e. O.P. No. 2 herself, it is evident that the petitioner No. 1 Mukesh Kumar Sinha @ Mukesh Kumar and all the family members had fully neglected her and her son and had demanded dowry and money from the O.P. No. 2 and also put pressure upon her for registering the entire moveable and immovable properties in his name. Even the petitioner No. 1 Mukesh Kumar Sinha @ Mukesh Kumar had not incurred any expenses during treatment of her son at AIIMs New Delhi.
24. Even during cross-examination she (i.e. O.P. No. 2) had emphatically stated that she is living in Maike since last 13 years on the date of her evidence / deposition in the year 2014. She has explained the circumstances that the family members had gone before the petitioners to keep her to help her in the treatment of her son but it was neglected by the petitioners.
25. Even petitioner No. 1 never informed her about his monthly salary. She merely stated that she was living with her husband and her husband used to assault her and her son.
Thus, A.W. 2- O.P. 2 has fully supported her case of neglect and domestic violence committed by the petitioner No. 1 and his family members.
26. It transpires that A.W. 1 Priti Sharan -mother of the O.P. No. 2 has fully supported the case of the O.P. No. 2 by stating that her daughter was tortured and assaulted by the petitioner No. 1. Despite giving assurance after entering into compromise, he neglected her and the petitioner had not given any expenses of her son of open heart surgery at AIIMs, New Delhi and entire expenses was made by her and her family members by taking money as loan.
Even during cross-examination she stated that the 10 petitioner No. 1 had assaulted her daughter to get registered her properties in his name.
Thus, A.W. 1 has also fully supported and corroborated the cases of the O.P. No. 2
27. It transpires that A.W. 3 Kusum Prasad i.e. own sister of the O.P. No. 2 , A.W. -4 Srinivas Prasad i.e. Mousa of the O.P. No. 2 and A.W. 5 Madhu Sinha i.e. cousin sister of O.P. No. 2 have also supported the case of O.P. No. 2.
28. It further appears that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court , Dhanbad had passed the order of alimony under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in T.M. S. No. 362 of 2004 by directing the petitioner No. 1 Mukesh Kumar Sinha @ Mukesh Kumar to pay to sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the Wife -O.P. No. 2.
29. It is held in the case of Shalu Ojha Vs. Prashant Ojha in Criminal Appeal No. 2070 of 2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India at Para Nos. 17, 19, 20, 21,22,23,24, 25 and 26 as follows:-
"Para 17:- Section 21 deals with the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to pass orders relating to custody of children of the aggrieved person. Section 22 deals with compensation orders which authorises the Magistrate to pass an order directing the respondent to pay compensation and damages for the injuries including mental torture and emotional distress caused by the act of domestic violence committed by the respondent. The Magistrate receiving a complaint under Section 12 is authorised under the Act to pass any one of the orders under the various provisions discussed above appropriate to the facts of the complaint. Section 29 provides for an appeal to the Court of Session against any order passed by the Magistrate under the Act either at the instance of the aggrieved person or the respondent."
" Para 19:- It can be seen from the DV Act that no further appeal or revision is provided to the High Court or any other court against the order of the Sessions Court under Section 29. It is in the background of the abovementioned scheme of the DV Act that this case is required to be considered. The appellant made a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act. The Magistrate in exercise of his jurisdiction granted maintenance to the appellant. The Magistrate's legal authority to pass such an order is 11 traceable to Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act."
" Para 20:- Questioning the correctness of the Magistrate's order in granting the maintenance of Rs 2.5 lakhs per month the respondent carried the matter in appeal under Section 29 to the Sessions Court and sought stay of the execution of the order of the Magistrate during the pendency of the appeal. Whether the Sessions Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Act has any power to pass interim orders staying the execution of the order appealed before it is a matter to be examined in an appropriate case. We only note that there is no express grant of power conferred on the Sessions Court while such power is expressly conferred on the Magistrate under Section 23. Apart from that, the power to grant interim orders is not always inherent in every court. Such powers are either expressly conferred or implied in certain circumstances. This Court in Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Music Broadcast (P) Ltd. [(2012) 5 SCC 488 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1] , examined this question in detail. At any rate, we do not propose to decide whether the Sessions Court has the power to grant interim order such as the one sought by the respondent herein during the pendency of his appeal, for that issue has not been argued before us."
"Para 21:-We presume (we emphasise that we only presume for the purpose of this appeal) that the Sessions Court does have such power. If such a power exists then it can certainly be exercised by the Sessions Court on such terms and conditions which in the opinion of the Sessions Court are justified in the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the alternative, if the Sessions Court does not have the power to grant interim orders during the pendency of the appeal, the Sessions Court ought not to have stayed the execution of the maintenance order passed by the Magistrate. Since the respondent did not comply with such conditional order, the Sessions Court thought it fit to dismiss the appeal. Challenging the correctness of the said dismissal, the respondent carried the matter before the High Court invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 227 of the Constitution."
"Para 22:- The issue before the High Court in Crl. MC No. 1975 of 2013 is limited i.e. whether the Sessions Court could have dismissed the respondent's appeal only on the ground that the respondent did not discharge the obligation arising out of the conditional interim order passed by the Sessions Court. Necessarily the High Court will have to go into the question whether the Sessions Court has the power to grant interim stay of the execution of the order under appeal before it."
" Para 23:- In a matter arising under a legislation meant for protecting the rights of women, the High Court should have been slow in granting interim orders, interfering with the orders by which maintenance is granted to the appellant. No doubt, such interim orders are now vacated. In the process the appellant is still awaiting the fruits of maintenance order even after 2 years of the order. We find it difficult to accept that in a highly contested 12 matter like this the appellant would have instructed her counsel not to press her claim for maintenance. In our view, the High Court ought not to have accepted the statement of the counsel without verification. The impugned order [Prashant Ojha v. Shalu Ojha, Criminal Misc. Case No. 1975 of 2013, order dated 15-4- 2014 (Del)] is set aside."
"Para 24:- We are of the opinion that the conduct of the respondent is a gross abuse of the judicial process. We do not see any reason why the respondent's petition Crl. MC No. 1975 of 2013 should be kept pending. Whatever be the decision of the High Court, one of the parties will (we are sure) approach this Court again thereby delaying the conclusion of the litigation. The interests of justice would be better served if the respondent's appeal before the Sessions Court is heard and disposed of on merits instead of going into the residuary questions of the authority of the appellate court to grant interim orders or the legality of the decision of the Sessions Court to dismiss the appeal only on the ground of the non-compliance by the respondent with the conditions of the interim order. Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2012 stands restored to the file of the Sessions Court."
"Para25:- We also direct that the maintenance order passed by the Magistrate be executed forthwith in accordance with law. The executing court should complete the process within 8 weeks and report compliance in the High Court. We make it clear that such hearing by the Sessions Court should only be after the execution of the order of maintenance passed by the Magistrate. "Para 26:- In the event of the respondent's success in the appeal, either in full or part, the Sessions Court can make appropriate orders regarding the payments due to be made by the respondent in the execution proceedings. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
30. It transpires that thereafter the petitioners had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2018 which was dismissed on 25.09.2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad , however the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad had modified and reduced the amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 4,000/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 as monetary reliefs including Maintenance allowance.
31. From the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court below, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge had noticed the demand of Rs. 3,00,000/- as Medical Expense by the O.P. No. 2 ( i.e. wife of the petitioner) towards treatment of 13 her son but the learned Sessions Judge calculated the amount vouchers and cash of Rs. 1,82,847/- and held both mother and father should bear half of the expenses incurred on the treatment of their son and as such learned Court below grave error by directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 91,423.50/- to the complainant - O.P. No. 2 worth medical expenses incurred by her during treatment of her son .
Although the learned Court below had also noticed that amount of Rs. 1500 per month is too small to meet the requirement of a lady (i.e. O.P. No. 2) who has a son also. However learned Sessions Judge had reduced the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to 4,000/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 which include the maintenance allowance.
32. In view of the discussion made above, it is evident that no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2018 on 25.09.2018 and C.P. Case No. 2006 of 2012 on 31.02.2018.
33. It transpires that the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the appeal with modification the maintenance amount and learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad had taken lenient view but the learned Sessions Judge surprisingly reduced the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month even after observing that Rs. 1,500/- per month to O.P. No. 2 is too low to live properly as she has also her son.
However, this part has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and her son as such this Court refrains itself for giving any finding, however the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have disturbed finding of the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Dhanbad.
34. It transpires the both the learned Courts below had 14 scrutinized evidence of A.W. 1 to A.W. 5 namely Priti Sharan, Rakhi Sinha, Kusum Prasad, Srinivas Prasad and Madhu Sinha @ Madhubala Sinha .
35. This Court finds that this is a case of complete negligence on the part of the petitioners and for causing domestic violence upon O.P. No. 2
36. It is further evident that the petitioner No. 1 has failed to keep his wife and her son even after passing of 20 years in order to escape from his liability and he has just offered to keep his wife and son.
37. The wife has also got legal right to keep herself away from husband her from the petitioner No. 1 and all the other petitioners to save herself from torture and assault and she cannot be compelled to live with her husband in the peculiar fact and circumstances of this case.
38. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 1885 of 2018 is hereby dismissed.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Bibha/ 15