Jharkhand High Court
Aditya Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 10 May, 2016
Author: R.N. Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.1113 of 2015
------------
Aditya Mishra, son of Dr. Shreenath Mishra,
Permanent Address- West Professor Colony, P.O. and P.S. Shastrinagar
District-Patna-23 ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Madhubala Kumari, daughter of Shri Maheshanad Jha
Resident of House No.A-085, K.K. Singh Colony, Chira Chas,
P.O.-Jamgoria, P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro
... ... ... Opp. Parties
------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shyam Sundar Pd. Kushwaha, Advocate
Mr. Shyam Bihari Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
------------
C.A.V. ON:- 06.05.2016 PRONOUNCED ON:- 10.05.2016
Calling in question the legality of the order dated
14.08.2015passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in M.P. Case No.117 of 2013 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for further direction to jeevansathi.com to send the login details, has been rejected.
2. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that at the instance of the complainant-opposite party no.2-Madhubala Kumari, a case for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short „the Code‟) was filed. The court below after filing of the said case issued notice to the petitioner to file written statement/show-cause whereafter written statement was filed controverting the allegation of the complainant-opposite party and that the case under Section 125 of the Code is not maintainable as the marriage of the opposite party no.2 with this petitioner was never consummated which would be clear from the fact that even after the alleged marriage on 25.06.2010, the complainant was accessing her matrimonial account in jeevansathi.com and surfing the grooms by stating therein "never married/unmarried" and this account is still in 2 Cr. Revision No.1113 of 2015 operation. It was also stated in the written statement and show cause that the complainant-opposite party no.2 has also been accessing/operating with bharatmatrimony.com from 08.08.2010 after making her profile in that she has also been shown as "unmarried/never married".
3. During pendency of the said case before the Family Court, a petition was filed at the instance of this petitioner on 11.09.2014 with prayer to call for the login details with I.P. address and its location bearing profile I.D.-H1715608 from bharatmatrimony.com, Chennai and jeevansathi.com, Sector-2, Noida respectively but the court below after hearing the parties rejected the prayer. Whereafter the criminal revision bearing no.1155 of 2014 was filed in this Court by the petitioner and after hearing both the parties a direction was given by order dated 31.03.2015 to the court concerned to call for those documents on deposit of required cost by the petitioner and conclude the evidence by June, 2015 and also directed the petitioner to keep paying interim maintenance to opposite party no.2 till conclusion of the proceeding. It appears from the record that thereafter by filing letters, login details with I.P. address and its location were called from both the matrimonial websites. Accordingly, those two websites forwarded the required documents and details to the court concerned but the petitioner not being satisfied with the details given by jeevansathi.com, again filed a petition in court below on 31.07.2015 with prayer to again direct jeevansathi.com to send login details with full information as to on what date the I.D. profile was accessed and operated with location but the court below by the order impugned dated 14.08.2015 rejected the prayer. Hence, this revision.
4. Learned counsel, Mr. Kushwaha appearing for the petitioner confined his submission and prayed to direct the court concerned to call for login details with full information as to on what date I.D. profile was accessed and operated with what location as the same will be required for proper adjudication of the issue between parties. Learned counsel further relying upon the two letters written by 3 Cr. Revision No.1113 of 2015 the court below to both the websites submitted that in the letter written to bharatmatrimony.com the court below directed to submit login detail with I.P. address and its location of profile I.D.-H1715608 but in the letter written to jeevansathi.com, the said websites was directed to submit profile of I.D. No.XZU3922 and no direction was given to jeevansathi.com to submit the login details with I.P. address and its location of profile as directed to bharatmatrimony.com. Hence, the order impugned is bad in law.
5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel, Mr. Mukesh Kumar appearing for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the only intention of the petitioner is to delay the disposal of case and though there was direction by this Court in earlier criminal revision to conclude the evidence by June, 2015 but the petitioner by filing petitions one after another has stalled the proceeding of the court below.
6. On perusal of the two letters written by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro to jeevansathi.com and bharatmatrimony.com, there appears to be some difference. Wherein direction has been given to jeevansathi.com to submit the profile I.D. No.XZU3922 but a different direction has been given to "bharatmatrimony.com" submit the login details with I.P. address and its location of profile I.D.-H1715608. The reasons for sending two different letters to the two matrimonial websites is not clear either from the order impugned or none of the parties has shown any reason for the same. There appears to be some force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts had sent two different types of letters to the two matrimonial websites. From perusal of the letters, which has been forwarded by the matrimonial websites which are enclosed with this revision as Annexure-7, no such direction was given to give the login details with I.P. address and its location of the profile.
7. In view of the discussions made above, this revision application is, hereby, allowed. The order impugned dated 14.08.2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in M.P. Case 4 Cr. Revision No.1113 of 2015 No.117 of 2013 is, hereby, set aside. The court concerned is directed to send fresh letter to jeevansathi.com in the light of the letter written to the bharatmatrimony.com and direct the said jeevansathi.com to send login details with I.P. address and its location of profile I.D. No.XZU3922 at the earliest and after receiving the said details, the court below is directed to conclude the evidence within three months from the date of receipt of the above information and conclude the trial at the earliest.
(R.N. Verma, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 10th May, 2016 Anit/N.A.F.R.