Jharkhand High Court
Niranjan Prasad Sah vs State Of Jharkhand on 20 January, 2017
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1148 of 2004
---------
Niranjan Prasad Sah, S/o Raghu Nath Sah, R/o Village-
Gidhani, Pahari, P.S.- Dumka Town, District- Dumka.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anju Devi, D/o Late Jagannath Sah, R/o Village- Shila
Pahar, P.S.- Dumka Town, District- Dumka.
... ... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---------
For the Petitioner : Ms. Satakshi, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2. : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
---------
10/20.01.2017Heard Ms. Satakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 05.07.2004 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 (Criminal Misc. Case No. 05 of 1992) by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka by which an application preferred by the petitioner u/s 127(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 was granted an amount of Rs. 400/- as monthly maintenance which the petitioner has sought to be recalled by filing an application u/s 127(2) of the Cr.P.C. which was subsequently rejected on 05.07.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had kept silent with respect to the opposite party no. 2 being his second wife for a considerable length of time. It has been submitted that in the revisional order as well as in the reply filed by the opposite party no. 2 it would clearly reveal that the opposite party no. 2 is the second wife of the petitioner and in such circumstances the opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to get any amount of maintenance.
At this learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 was not aware of the petitioner having already solemnized a marriage with another lady -2- and has by keeping her in the dark the petitioner had subsequently solemnized marriage with the opposite party no. 2. It has been submitted that if the opposite party no. 2 was aware of the subsisting marriage of the petitioner with another lady and if having contracted the marriage in such circumstances she would definitely had to face the consequences as she would not have been entitled to get any monthly maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 thus submits that the order dated 05.07.2004 is on consideration of the materials available on record and therefore no interference is necessitated in the said order.
The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party no. 2 is the second wife of the petitioner and thus not entitled to get any monthly maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. In support of her contention learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the revisional order dated 14.02.2000 as well as the reply which has been filed by the petitioner. None of the orders indicate that the opposite party no. 2. was aware of the subsisting marriage of the petitioner with another lady and in spite of the said fact she had solemnized marriage with the petitioner.
Such circumstances cannot dis-entitle the opposite party no. 2 from being maintained by the petitioner. Moreover, it has been considered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka that at the time of trial the plea was never raised by the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 is the second wife and no specific issue was also framed with that respect. The said claim which has been made by the petitioner is a belated claim and it does not have the foundational facts to sustain such claim. Such circumstances therefore does not call for any interference in the order dated 05.07.2004 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 (Criminal Misc. Case No. 05 of 1992) by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka and accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/-