Jharkhand High Court
Rahmatulla vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 27 March, 2012
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H.C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.601 of 2010
Rahmatulla ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sanjida Khatun .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate
For the State : A. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubay, Advocate
Mr. Altamash Khan, Advocate
-----
7/27.3.2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
2. This revision application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.4.2010 passed in Misc. Case No.32 of 2008 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa, whereby in a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by O.P. No. 2 against the petitioner, who is her husband, the Court below has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance to O.P. No. 2-wife.
3. From the impugned order, it appears that a criminal case was filed against the petitioner for rape upon O.P. No. 2 and in course of which the petitioner was arrested. It appears that the said case was compromised between the parties and the petitioner married the O.P. No. 2. It also appears from the impugned order that O.P. No. 2 had examined two witnesses and the petitioner had also examined two witnesses in in support of their case. However, on the basis of the materials brought on record, the Court below found that that there was valid marriage between the parties and the Court below, taking into consideration the earning given by the petitioner himself i.e. Rs.2,000/- per month, has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance to his wife-O.P. No. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order submitting that the said marriage, if any, had taken place due to coercion upon by the villagers for compromising the case and though there was 'Nikah' between the parties, but the petitioner has denied the existence of 'Nikah' between the parties as the petitioner had not entered into 'Nikah' out of his free will which is not a 'Nikah' in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that the marriage is not 2 valid and the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and fit to be set-aside.
5. Learned APP on the other hand opposed the prayer submitting that on the basis of the materials brought on record, the Court below has come to the conclusion that there was valid marriage between the parties and the Court below has also taken into consideration the income of the petitioner, and has passed the order of maintenance.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, I find that the documents were brought on record in the Court below in which the compromise between the parties in the criminal case was accepted not only by the petitioner, rather by the family members of the petitioner who stated that the parties were residing together as husband and wife. It also appears that the petitioner has compromised the case out of his free will in the criminal case and thereafter he is denying the marriage with O.P. No.2. However, in view of the materials brought on record, the Court below has come to the conclusive finding that there was valid marriage between the parties and accordingly passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to grant maintenance to O.P. No.2.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this application is hereby dismissed.
(H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar