SHIV SHANKAR MURMU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Shiv Shankar Murmu has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order dated 22.6.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the order passed in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2001 by the SDJM, Porahat at Chaibasa on 28.2.2006 in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2,5001 - per month to the O.P. NO.2 Piyo Murmu was confirmed.

(2.) THE short fact for consideration in the instant case was that the opposite party No. 2 Piyo Murmu had initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/ - from her husband -petitioner herein on the ground that she was legally married to him on 28.1.1997 according to Santhal customary rites and thereafter both started living together. The marriage was consummated and after one month of their marriage, the petitioner left his house in order to join his duties in the army on assurance that he would visit her at regular intervals and that she would be provided all bare necessities of life. It was alleged that after departure of the husband -petitioner, her in -laws started perpetrating torture, stopped her food and compelled her to live in a cow -shed, thereby made her life miserable. When the petitioner returned back from his posting, the complainant/opposite party NO.2 narrated her miseries but without any heed to her grievance. She contacted the Mukhia of the village and a panchayati was convened on 8.3.1998, attended by several people of the village wherein the father of the petitioner assured that he would keep her with due care and comfort yet, there was no change in the behaviour of her in -laws After a long gap, second panchayati was held on 18.8.2000. In this Panchayati also no positive decision could be taken for her settlement except the false promise of her in -laws. The complainant alleged that when her husband came back and learnt about the panchayati, became furious and drove her out from his house. Finding no way out she took shelter in the house of one Salkhan Murmu, as her parents were already dead and there was none in her parental home. The petitioner was suitably employed in the army, drawing monthly salary of Rs. 8,330/ -, besides 10 bighas of culturable land, as such, she claimed Rs. 500/ - mot"1thly maintenance.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. M.K. Dey, the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf .of the opposite party NO.2 submitted that there was concurrent finding of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the factum of marriage as also by the Revisional Court of Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West that the O.P. No. 2 was married wife of the petitioner which did not call for interference by this court. The witnesses were consistent before the learned SDJM on the factum of marriage and admittedly, the petitioner was working as Nayak having his salary to the extent of Rs. 9,000/ - per month. Though the complainant/opposite party NO.2 had demanded only Rs. 500/ - but the learned SDJM having considered the amended provision in the Cr.P.C. and applying his discretion and prudence, allowed the maintenance to the opposite party NO.2 to the tune of Rs. 2,500/ - per month directing the petitioner to pay from 5.9.200/ which was modified by the Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 2006 by his order dated 22.6.2007 whereunder the maintenance amount was made payable from 1.10.2001 and not from 5.9.2001. The witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant/opposite party NO.2 were consistent and therefore, finding of facts was based upon the evidence and the same was upheld by the revisional court. Finally Mr. Dey submitted that under the circumstances this Misc. petition was liable to be dismissed.