SUKRO DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7-7-2004 passed by the 1st Addl. Judicial Commissioner, khunti (Ranchi) in Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2000, whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17-8-2000 passed by the learned ACJM, khunti in Maintenance Case No. 6 of 1997 praying for maintenance was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was married to the opposite party No. 2 and from their consortium, a son was born to the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that subsequent to the birth of the child, the attitude and behaviour of her husband underwent a drastic change and he began subjecting her to ill treatment, neglect, cruelty and physical violence to her. She was ultimately expelled from her matrimonial house on 22-8-1996 and therefore she had resorted to criminal proceedings by way of a complaint being complaint case No. 58 of 1996 and having been totally neglected by her husband, the petitioner had filed an application before the ACJM, Khunti, for claiming maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr. P. C. The case was registered as M. Case No. 6 of 1997. The claim for maintenance as filed by the petitioner was contested by the opposite party no. 2 primarily on the ground that the petitioner had voluntarily left her matrimonial house after she had developed an illicit relation with one Jagannath Mahato alias futchua with whom she was living in adultery. The opposite party had also claimed that he had filed a case at the police station against the said Jagannath Mahato for the offence of abduction which was registered karra PS Case No. 46 of 1996. It was also claimed by the opposite party No. 2 that the earlier Complaint Case No. 58 of 1996 in which the petitioner was charged for the offence under section 498a of the Indian Penal Code had ended in acquittal of the opposite party No. 2 since the charge of cruelty and demand for dowry was not proved against him. It was further claimed that in the case filed by him for the offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, the police after investigation had submitted charge sheet pursuant to which cognizance of the offence was taken and the paramour of the petitioner was put on trial before the court of session in Sessions Trial No. 441 of 1997. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's claim for maintenance on the ground that though admittedly, the opposite party No. 2 was the husband of the petitioner, but the petitioner did not make out a reasonable ground for living separately from her husband and for claiming separate maintenance since it was proved by the evidence adduced by the opposite party No. 2 that the petitioner had left her husband's house without any reasonable excuse and that she was living in adultery carrying on extra-marital relation with another person. The order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner in the revision preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, but the Revisional court also dismissed her claim for maintenance on the same grounds and for the same reasons as assigned by the enquirying magistrate.

(3.) MS. Reshmi Pradhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the Additional judicial Commissioner passed in the Revision application and also the order of the enquirylng magistrate basically on the ground that both the courts have committed grave error by failing to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and by failing to offer adequate opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence on her behalf. Learned counsel explains that admittedly, the petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party No. 2 and their marriage was consummated and a child was born to the petitioner after two years of the marriage. The petitioner was thereafter subjected to ill treatment, neglect and cruelty by her husband and was expelled by him from his house on false and frivolous allegation of adultery. Learned counsel adds that that the case for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, was a well planned move by the husband in connivance with some of his close associates within the village since he had himself developed an illicit relation with another lady and had wanted to get rid of the petitioner. Learned counsel adds further that the very fact that on the one hand, the opposite party had levelled allegation of adultery against the petitioner, but on the other hand, he has declared that he is prepared to keep the petitioner in his house with full honour and dignity, in itself would suggest that the allegation of adultery was false and that even otherwise, he had condoned the act of adultery. Learned counsel adds further that admittedly the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 does subsist and therefore the petitioner is entitled to claim and receive maintenance from her husband.