Jharkhand High Court
Paresh Kumhar Alias Poresh Kumar vs Josna Devi on 14 November, 2017
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.1095 of 2015
Paresh Kumhar @ Paresh Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Josna Devi ....Opposite Party
-----
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate
For the O.P. : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
----
07/14.11.2017: Heard the parties.
This application is directed against the judgment dated 21.07.2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No.323 of 2014 whereby and whereunder, the application preferred by the opp. Party under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.8000/- to the opp. Party.
It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Opp. Party could not prove the marriage solemnized with the father of the petitioner, namely, Sitaram Kumhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact, the Opp. Party is the wife of late Birbal Kumhar, which has been stated in the show cause and it was never denied by the Opp. Party. Learned counsel further submits that the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Topchanchi also reveals the absence of the father of petitioner being the husband of the O.P. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the marriage between Sitaram Kumhar and the Opp. Party could not be proved by her, as such, the petitioner is not liable to make payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.8000/- to the opp. Party.
Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the Opp. Party has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that the opp. Party had denied that she was earlier married with late Birbal Kumhar. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, has referred to the case of Akhtar Ansari vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in [2011(2) East Cr.C. 167 (Jhr)] and has stated that since the Opp. Party is a widow and being such, she is entitled to maintenance from the petitioner, who had been given appointment in BCCL on compassionate ground on the death of his father namely, Sitaram Kumhar. Learned counsel further submits that strict proof of marriage is not necessary in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and since there was a tacit admission on the part of the petitioner with respect to his father having solemnized marriage, learned court below has rightly granted maintenance to the Opp. Party vide impugned order dated 21.07.2015.
It appears that the primary contention of the petitioner is that the marriage of the father of the petitioner was never solemnized wit the Opp. Party and thus, Opp. Party was never the step mother of the petitioner. However, learned court below has decided only the said issue and has given finding with respect to silence of the petitioner before the Panchayat with regard to the marriage of the father of the petitioner with the Opp. Party. In view of the silence on the part of the petitioner, learned trial court had come to a finding that such silence reveals admission on the part of the petitioner, regarding marriage solemnized between the father of the petitioner with the Opp. Party.
From the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the conduct of the petitioner before the Panchyat and what has been stated by him in evidence thus, reveals indirectly that he has admitted the claim of the Opp. Party that she was the legally married wife of Sitaram Kumhar.
After giving finding with respect to maintainability of the said submission, the quantum of maintenance has been decided based on the fact that the petitioner is an employee of BCCL. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Kertikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujrat and others, reported in (1996)4 SCC 479 and also in the case of Ulleppa vs. Gangabai reported in 2003 CRI. L. J. 2566 wherein it was, thus, held that if the step mother was a widow and she has natural born issue but such issue is a daughter, who has been married and living separately in her matrimonial house, the claim of maintenance to the step mother can also be extended.
In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the Opp. Party did not have any issue and after the death of Sitaram Kumhar, she was in penury and in such circumstances, therefore, learned trial court, on proper appreciation of the materials available on the record as well as legal aspect of the matter, allowed the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the opp. Party, while granting monthly maintenance of Rs.8000/- to the opp. Party.
I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.07.2015. Accordingly, this application is hereby, dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Ravi/-