Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Mishra vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2022
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Criminal Revision No. 1017 of 2016
1. Birendra Mishra, s/o late Pandit Deo Narayan Mishra
2. Bina Mishra, w/o Sri Birendra Mishra,
Both r/o C/o Sri Abhay Kumar Jha, tenant of Sri Ranjit
Kumar, Qr. No. 170/2/4, Road No.5, Bagbera Colony, PO & PS-
Bagbera Colony, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Amarnath Mishra, s/o Sri Birendra Mishra, r/o 2, RF 145, Block
No.6, Near Canara Bank, PO & PS-Nowamundi, District-West
Singhbhum. ... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Miss Rishi Bharati, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, APP
For O.P No.2 : Mrs. Kumari Sugandha, Amicus
---------
Order No. 19/Dated: 11th November 2022 Against the order dated 20th May 2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 126 of 2011 (in short, maintenance case), the parents of Amarnath Mishra have filed this criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded by the Principal Judge, Family Court.
2. The first ground of challenge put forth on behalf of the petitioners is that the reason assigned by the Family Court to hold that Rs.10,000/- per month would be sufficient for the petitioners to maintain themselves is flawed in law.
3. The Family Court has made the following discussions in this regard:
"Whether Rs.4000/- per month is sufficient for maintaining two people or not is question which requires evaluation. The applicants have come up with a case that they need Rs.7500/- per month and it has not been stated in the pleadings that this amount of Rs.7500/- is required in addition to Rs.4000/- which they are getting from post office. It is true that Rs.4000/- per month is very meager amount for the purpose of maintenance of two senior citizens who will always be requiring medical and other attending expenses. Claim for maintenance to the tune of Rs.7500/- was made as far back in the year 2011 when the present case was instituted and by now five years have already lapsed and hence the delay has also to be considered.
As already discussed the applicants are residing with their daughters and it is consented accommodation as the daughters 2 Criminal Revision No. 1017 of 2016 has not opposed to such residence of the applicant. It is important to mention over here that Bina Sadan constructed by the present applicant is alleged to be in the possession of the present O.P. Applicant witness no.1 who is the applicant no.1 has stated that O.P has threatened to dispossess them from Bina Sadan while the second applicant in her evidence has stated that O.P has already ousted them from the house at Bangaon and evidence on behalf of the O.P also shows that his younger son and his wife residing at Saharsa. There is no conclusive evidence of ouster of the applicants from their house at Bangaon, Saharsa. But considering the fact that applicants are getting free medical facilities at Jamshedpur, hence, they have right to continue at Jamshedpur and the question of ouster from the house at Bangaon, Saharsa is not of much importance.
It is also admitted that younger son is also employed at Ahmadabad. The distinguishing factor of the younger son with the present O.P is that the present O.P got his job on the basis of recommendation made by this father. Thus, has a larger moral responsibility to maintain his father."
4. Reiterating the stand taken before the Family Court, Mrs. Kumari Sugandha, the learned Amicus raises a plea on behalf of O.P No. 2 that the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C) was not maintainable as the petitioners did not join all his children who admittedly are well-off in life.
5. To fortify the aforesaid submission, Mrs. Kumari Sugandha, the learned Amicus has referred to the following judgments :
(i) "Vijaya Manohar Arbat Dr. (Mrs.) v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai & Anr." (1987) 2 SCC 278,
(ii) "A. Ahathinamiligai v. Arumughnam" 1988 CRI L. J. 6 (Madras),
(iii) "Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma" (2000) 4 SCC 266,
(iv) "Mahendra Kumar Ramrao Gaikwad v. Gulabbai Ramrao Gaikwad & Anr." 2001 CRI L.J. 2111,
(v) "Mehboobkhan v. Babarkhan & Ors. (2004) DMC 224 and,
(vi) "Smt. Kuni Dei @ Kuni Behadi v. Pabitra Mohan Behadi & Anr." 2013 SCC OnLine Ori 219.
6. The aforesaid judgments provide valuable insight to deal with the application for maintenance. However, the plea raised by the learned Amicus cannot be considered in the present proceeding as O.P No.2 has not preferred any petition in the nature of cross-objection.
3 Criminal Revision No. 1017 of 2016
7. Section 125 Cr.P.C provides that the Magistrate may make an order of maintenance against a person who having sufficient means neglects his wife, minor children or parents who are unable to maintain themselves. There are certain restrictions enumerated under section 125 Cr.P.C on account of which a wife may not be entitled for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C - if the conditions under sub-section (4) are satisfied. However, there is no bar or restriction under sub-section (4) to section 125 Cr.P.C in granting maintenance to the parents who come to the Court claiming that they do not have sufficient means to maintain themselves.
8. The petitioner no.1 who was employed under T.M.H superannuated from service in the year 2004. It has come on record that he received certain sums of money as post-retiral benefits which accrue Rs.4,000/- per month by way of interest. In the proceeding of the maintenance case, it has also come on record that the elder son is earning Rs.42,000/- per month (gross salary) from his employment as Teacher.
9. The proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C is predominantly civil in nature and in such a proceeding absolute proof of any fact is not required. It is also well-settled that in a proceeding like the one under section 125 Cr.P.C rules of evidence are not strictly applied by the Courts - it is a summary proceeding.
10. On the basis of the materials laid before it, the Family Court has held that an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month is sufficient for the petitioners to maintain themselves. In the present proceeding, I do not find any material evidence on the basis of which the petitioners can claim that the amount of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the Family Court is not sufficient for them to live a respectful and dignified life. In this context, I intend to indicate that income of the elder son in the circumstances of the case cannot be a reason to seek enhancement - after all the petitioners have claimed only Rs.15,000/- per month. This also has to be kept in mind that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the High 4 Criminal Revision No. 1017 of 2016 Court generally shall not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Court below [refer, "Deb Narayan Halder v. Anushree Halder (SMT)" (2003) 11 SCC 303].
11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1017 of 2016 is dismissed. However, it is indicated that the petitioners, if so advised, may file an application under section 127 Cr.P.C on account of the price rise and inflation in the last 11 years.
12. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus.
13. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned through FAX.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J. ) Amit/