MANSHU MAHTO @ NEPAL MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred Criminal Revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act against the order impugned dated 7.2.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court. Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 96 of 2004 whereby the learned Principal Judge while allowing the petition filed on behalf of the O.P. No 2 in a proceeding under Section 125, CrPC enhanced the amount of maintenance suo motu without consent of the petitioner and beyond the scope of relief as sought for.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case was that the O.P. No. 2 Achho Devi admitted to be the wife of the petitioner initiated a proceeding under Section 125, CrPC demanding monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/ - from the petitioner. Though it was admitted by the petitioner husband in respect of a criminal case in which both the parties entered into compromise in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1994 with certain terms and conditions laid down in the compromise petition and the same was disposed of by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro on 23.1.2003. In the proceeding under Section 125, CrPC vide M.P. No. 96 of 2004 the O.P. No. 2 Achho Devi demanded monthly maintenance only @ Rs. 1,000/ - to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner and at no point of time such amount as contained in the prayer of the proceeding was amended, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, for the enhancement of Rs. 1000/ - being the monthly maintenance amount as sought for.

(3.) WHEN the matter was agitated before this Court, comment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad was called for by the order dated 16.2.2006 and pursuant to that the Principal Judge, Dhanbad (Mr. H.P. Chakravarty) vide his letter No. 117 dated 3.3.2006 reported that the impugned order was passed by his predecessor Court and he was unable to comment in this regard. By filing supplementary affidavit, the petitioner exhorted that he had never expressed willingness to pay a sum of Rs. 1200/ - per month to the O.P. No. 2 in a proceeding under Section 125, CrPC as against the demand of Rs. 1.000/ - per month. By filing another supplementary affidavit dated 23.3.2007, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 7.2.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court in M.P. Case No. 206 of 2004 was communicated to his employer who has been deducting Rs. 1200/ - per month from his salary from the month of September, 2005 till the affidavit though the petitioner had expressed his willingness to pay the agreed amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1.000/ - to the O.P. No. 2.