Jharkhand High Court
Gyan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 February, 2020
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1235 of 2014
Gyan Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sapna Devi ..... Opposite Parties
With
Cr. Revision No. 669 of 2013
Gyan Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sapna Devi ..... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocate
-----
JUDGEMENT
CAV on: 31/01/2020, Pronounced on: 28/02/2020 Since both these applications are connected to each other, as such, the same were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Cr. Revision No.1235 of 2014 has been preferred by the petitioner-husband challenging the judgment dated 21.11.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in Cr. Appeal No.27 of 2014, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner along with the co-convicts was partly allowed.
3. The learned trial court in C.P. Case No.89/2006 corresponding to T.R. No.567/2014, convicted the petitioner along with the co-accused for the offence committed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them for the aforesaid charges.
4. The learned appellate court while sustaining the conviction of the petitioner whereby he was directed to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under -2- Section 498A IPC has been sustained, whereas the other co- convicts were acquitted from their charges.
5. Cr. Revision No.669 of 2013 has been preferred by the petitioner-husband challenging the judgment dated 10.04.2013, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in M.P Case No.85 of 2007, whereby the application filed by the opposite party-wife under Section 125 Cr. P.C was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to the O.P-wife.
6. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appears for the petitioner in both these applications. He submits that the impugned judgments are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He contended that when the petitioner went to the house of O.P. No.2 for making vidai, he was badly beaten and attacked by the parents/relatives of O.P. No.2, for which Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.129/2008 was lodged by the petitioner.
7. He further submits that the opposite party No.2 is residing separately at her own free will and as such she is not entitled for any maintenance. It is only due to the act of the O.P- wife, the petitioner developed mental illness and was forced to leave job and at present he is suffering from mental illness. In support of this ground of mental illness he annexed 3 medical prescription dated 27.12.2010, 02.10.2012 and 28.01.2013.
8. Relying upon these prescriptions/report of the Doctor he submits that he is unable to pay maintenance to his wife and he himself is being maintained by his family members. He further -3- submits that even the learned Family Court in its order has observed that the wife is residing separately at her own free will as such in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Damodar Thapa reported in 2013 Vol-2 East India Criminal Case JH page 543, O.P. No.2-wife is not entitled for any maintenance and the learned Family Court has committed a gross error in not appreciating these facts. He further submits that even in the criminal case wherein the conviction of the petitioner has been sustained is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the simple reason that on the same set of allegations the other co-convicts were acquitted and only the conviction of the petitioner has been sustained.
9. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions the learned senior counsel contended that both the revision applications deserves to be allowed.
10. Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2-wife strenuously opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the opposite party-wife is residing separately due to demand of dowry and torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, for which the instant complaint petition was lodged in which the petitioner was convicted and the conviction of the petitioner has been upheld by the learned appellate court and the same has been challenged by the petitioner in Cr. Revision No.1235 of 2014. From the evidences, it clearly transpire that the O.P. No.2 has been subjected to demand and torture at the house of petitioner-husband due to which she was compelled to reside -4- separately. It is not the case that the opposite party-wife on her own will has left the house of the husband, rather it was the continuous torture for the demand of dowry she was forced to leave in-laws place and for the same reason criminal case was lodged by her, upon which the conviction was upheld up till appellate court. As such, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the instant case. He further submits that as a matter of fact, initially the petitioner has lodged a false case being Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.129 of 2008 in which the brother and father of O.P. No.2-wife have faced the trial and honourably acquitted by the learned trial court and for the same occurrence, the O.P. No.2 lodged an FIR which was registered as Bokaro Steel City Case No.28/2008 against the petitioner and family members, for which the learned trial court convicted them.
11. Relying upon the aforesaid facts and submissions he contended that all the acts of the petitioner was to deny the maintenance to his wife. He further contended that the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court by referring the order sheet of M.T.S. Case No.85/2007, whereby it has been alleged that the Family Court has observed that wife is residing separately on her own will. As a matter of fact, the learned Family Court in its order has referred the affidavit filed by the petitioner himself and the same was not the observations, rather it was the reference of the affidavit of the petitioner. It is only due to non-payment of maintenance, the petitioner is trying to mislead to this Court by -5- filing Medical prescription of the Doctor. He further submits that the petitioner is earning from running a School, whereas the O.P. No.2 has no income and she is on the verge of starvation. He concluded his argument by submitting that no error has been committed by the learned Family Court in awarding the maintenance to the wife but unfortunately not even single penny has been paid and the total outstanding amount of maintenance is Rs.3,36,000/-
12. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner in both the cases and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2-wife and the learned APP.
13. In Cr. Revision No.669 of 2014, even assuming and accepting the entire contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been suffering from mental decease but admittedly he is not hospitalized. Further, when he is being regularly getting medical treatment with the aid of his family members, then in my considered opinion even his wife is entitled for maintenance. The learned Family Court in its order dated 10.04.2013 has dealt the issue of mental illness in detail and come to the conclusion that the O.P. No.2-wife is entitled for maintenance. As a matter of fact the learned Family Court in the backdrop of all those facts, awarded only Rs.2000/- as maintenance to be paid by the petitioner-husband to the O.P. No.2-wife. Even otherwise, Section 18 sub section 1 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a Hindu wife shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time. -6- There is catena of judgments wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law that the husband cannot absolve himself from his duty to maintain her wife even if he is a beggar.
14. In this view of the matter and the settled proposition of law the learned Family Court has rightly awarded the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner to O.P. No.2-wife. As a result thereof, Cr. Revision No.669 of 2013 is, hereby, dismissed.
15. So far as the Criminal Revision No.1235 of 2014 is concerned keeping in view the limited scope of revision jurisdiction I refrain myself from reappreciating the evidences and findings given by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, as such, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is hereby, confirmed.
16. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2006 and 14 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 14 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail.
17. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the accused person back to prison rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.
18. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to -7- undergo for the period already undergone subject to the payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-.
19. It is made clear that the petitioners shall deposit the aforesaid fine of Rs.20,000/- within a period of 2 months from today before the learned trial court, which shall be paid to the O.p. No.2-wife as compensation.
20. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence, Cr. Revision No.1235 of 2014 is disposed of.
21. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds in Cr. Revision No.1235 of 2014, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
22. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J) Pramanik/