AMIT KUMAR KACHHAP Vs. SANGEETA TOPPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment dtd. 20/4/2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No.241 of 2017 filed under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the learned Court below had allowed the maintenance application and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs.15,000.00 per month to the opposite party from the date of application i.e. 30/10/2017.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the maintenance application under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of the opposite party-wife, namely, Sangeeta Toppo against her husband Amit Kumar Kachhap with these allegations that she was married with Amit Kumar Kachhap on 1/12/2014 at Argora, Ranchi according to their custom, rites, ritual and usages as both the parties are belonging to Sarna community. After marriage, the opposite party-wife was taken to her in-law's house at Baridih and from the very next day the demand of car, fridge, LED TV etc. was began to raise. The petitioner-husband and his family members also began to create pressure to fulfill the said demand. The petitioner-husband began to avoid the opposite party-wife manhandled her and neglected her on petty matters. The petitioner-husband having administered himself with alcohol and used to abuse the opposite party-wife and also manhandled her. The petitionerhusband is also having relation with one lady Poonam Kumari, who was introduced by him as the friend of his sister Rashmi Kachhap but, later on, the opposite party-wife came to know that the illicit relationship developed between her husband and lady Poonam Kumari and he has been depriving the opposite party-wife of the love, care and protection and maintenance as well, in such circumstances, the opposite party-wife was compelled to live in misery. The opposite party-wife is unemployed tribal lady. The petitionerhusband is employeed in Indian Railway and works as a Loco Pilot, he is getting salary of Rs.60,000.00 per month. He also runs business of Marriage Hall at Baradih, from which, he also gets income of Rs.1,00,000.00 per month. He has also 12 shops, which are given on rent and, from which, he earns Rs.60,000.00 per month. In view of the above, prayed to allow the maintenance amount of Rs.50,000.00 per month.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner-husband, the reply of show cause was filed, in which, he stated that indeed both parties belong to the scheduled tribe being Oraon community and the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not applicable. Both parties are governed by the custom and usages prevalent in their community. After solemnization of marriage, the applicant was taken to Jamshedpur to the matrimonial house, where she stayed for one week but on the request of mausa and mausi of the applicant she again went to Ranchi at the hosue of her mausa and mausi, who were acting as guardian of her. The applicant is post-graduate. The mausa and mausi of the applicant are instrumentally intervening in her day-to-day affair. On 23/2/2015, she was taken by her mausa and mausi to Ranchi on the assurance that she would come back within 15 days, but to the utter surprise of the petitioner husband, she neither came to the matrimonial house nor agreed to come back in spite of the repeated request made by the husband. The applicant, who had conceived during her marriage at the matrimonial house had also got abortion without consent taken by the opposite party and, later on, the petitioner-husband came to know that she got the pregnancy terminated without his consent during her stay at the house of her mausa and mausi. The mausa and mausi of the applicant were also interested for the second marriage of the opposite party as their custom permits for the same. The entire ornament of the petitioner are with the opposite party. It was applicant, who had left the society of the husband without any reasonable cause. The petitioner-husband waited for more than two years and divorced the applicant on 17/7/2017 and left her to marry according to her choice. As such, the applicant is not entitled to maintenance amount. In view of the above, prayed to dismiss the maintenance application.