DHANESHWAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

(2.) This criminal revision petition has been filed for setting-aside the order dtd. 29/5/2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.66 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the petition and the petitioner is also directed to pay the arrear amount in 12 equal installments within next 12 months and he is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000.00 as litigation cost to the opposite party no.2.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma, wherein it was alleged that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the petitioner according to Hindu rites and customs in the year 1972 and after marriage, opposite party no.2 went to her matrimonial home. He further submits that it was further stated in the said application that the petitioner never liked opposite party no.2 since beginning and started to torture her mentally and physically. It was also stated in the said application that opposite party no.2 gave birth to a daughter, namely, Archana Sharma from their wedlock. It was further stated that the petitioner performed second marriage upon which opposite party no.2 made an application before the Police and, thereafter, the petitioner ready to pay maintenance to opposite party no.2, but since 2020 the petitioner is not paying maintenance to her, however, the petitioner is a Director in Adarsh Vidya School, Jhumri Telaiya having monthly income of Rs.50,000.00 other than agricultural and own house. He then submits that the petitioner appeared in the said case and filed his show-cause and has stated that opposite party no.2 is neither his wife nor their marriage was solemnized in the year 1972 though the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with one Chandramohani Sharma in the year 1974 and out of their wedlock, there are three off-springs. He submits that opposite party no.2 was living in relationship with the petitioner and out of the said relationship, she gave birth of daughter namely Archana Sharma and the petitioner gave a house to her and also borne all her expenses ensuring a proper maintenance of opposite party no.2 and her daughter supported financially in her academics till M.A. and B.Ed. degree and she is presently a Teacher in D.A.V. School, Barhi and earning about Rs.50,000.00 per month and married and now opposite party no.2 is residing with her daughter Archana Sharma and takes care of her two kids. He next submits that in the aforesaid backgrounds, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma has passed the impugned order in the said original maintenance case and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the petition and direction was there that the petitioner will pay arrear amount in 12 equal installments within next 12 months and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000.00 as litigation cost. He then submits that opposite party no.2 was residing along with the petitioner in live-in relationship and out of the said relationship, she gave birth to a daughter, namely, Archana Sharma. He further submits that the learned Court has not taken care of the fact that the petitioner has provided all facilities to opposite party no.2 and in spite of that, the said order has been passed. According to him, marriage was not solemnized with opposite party no.2 and in view of that, opposite party no.2 is not entitled for maintenance from the petitioner under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he submits that the learned Court has wrongly passed the impugned order and in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.