IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.494 of 2009
Chotu Modi. ... ... ... ... ...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Smt. Malti Devi.
3. Sushila Kumari.
4. Sunita Kumari.
5. Vinay Kumar. ... ... ... ... ...Opp. Parties
-------------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Petitioner: Mr. Barnwal S. Lal, Sr. Advocate.
For the State: A.P.P.
-------------
C.A.V. on 19.04.2011 : Pronounced on 20.07.2011
-------------
D.K.Sinha,J. The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated
12.02.2009
passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in
Maintenance Case No.30 of 2007.
2. The Opposite Party No. 2 to 5 had initiated a proceeding under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner
demanding a sum of Rs.2500/- for the maintenance of the complainant wife-
Opposite Party No.2 and further @ Rs.1000/- per month for each of his minor
children i.e. the Opposite Party Nos. 3, 4 & 5 total to the tune of Rs.5,500/- per
month.
3. It was the admitted case that the petitioner No.1 was married to
the Opposite Party No.2 in the year 1991 and from the consumation of
marriage, two daughters and one son were born to them, who were the
Opposite Party Nos. 3,4 and 5 herein. It was alleged that since 2003 the
petitioner and the members of his family started extending torture to the
Opposite Party No. 2 on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry to
the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was demanded by them. She was assaulted
by the husband-petitioner on 17.01.2005 and other in laws and in the same
sequence certain amount was snatched from her possession. In the
meantime, the petitioner solemnized second marriage with one Most. Uma
Devi, daughter of Jharkhandi Modi of village Parbatta in the month of January,
2005 with the consent and collusion with the other members of his family.
Finally, she was assaulted on 08.02.2005 soon after his second marriage and
her jewelleries worth Rs. 10,000/- and cash about Rs.5,000/- were retained by
the accused persons. Since then she with her children was living at her
parental home. A “Panchayati” was also held but the accused persons
abstained and hence Complaint Case No. 119 of 2005 was filed by her for the
2.
alleged offence under Section 498A and 380 of the Indian Penal Code against
the accused persons including the petitioner wherein a compromise was filed
on 07.09.2005 during pendency of the Bail Petition No. 801 of 2005 before the
6th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh wherein the petitioner-husband
undertook to give Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife and also
promised to deposit Rs.20,000/- in the name of his daughter Sushila Kumari
for her marriage in terms of a compromise and then bail was granted to him,
yet, after his release from jail he did not adhere to the terms of the
compromise. The complainant was a housewife having no independent source
of earning and was totally dependant upon her parents with her minor
children. The complainant O.P.No.2 claimed that her husband-petitioner had
earning Rs.5,000/- per month from his business and Rs.50,000/- per annum
from his cultivation and therefore, total sum of Rs. 5,500/- was demanded
being the maintenance per month of the complainant and her minor children.
The petitioner-husband appeared in the said proceeding. In his causes shown
the husband-petitioner admitted his marriage with the Opposite Party No.2.
He explained that on 01.05.2004 when he was away from his house the father
of the complainant Amir Modi came to his house and took away is wife with
the children. It was further alleged that he removed Rs.5000/- in cash and one
Alowin automatic wrist watch as also the receipt of the fixed deposit passbook
of Rs.12,000/- from his house. When the members of his family protested
then the father of the complainant took the complainant away pretending that
her mother was ill and that he would return her within a week. When his wife
and the children did not return within time stipulated the petitioner-husband
filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of
conjugal rights. The complainant did not appear in spite of the receipt of the
notice and finally by the order dated 23.04.2005 the case was decided in
favour of the husband-petitioner. It was further explained that the demand of
dowry was false and concocted and it was also false that Chhotu Modi had
assaulted Malti Devi due to non-fulfillment of the aforesaid amount. The
petitioner-husband expressed his willingness and readiness to keep his wife
and children and was also ready to spend Rs.1,000/- per month for their
maintenance and to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the marriage of their
daughter Sushila Kumari but of no avail. As regards the income and
maintenance of his wife and children the husband-petitioner explained that the
father of his wife had transferred his entire property worth Rs.5,00,000/- ( Five
lakh) in the name of his daughter complainant. Her father being the employee
of Indian Railway had sufficient income to maintain her and her children and
that he offered to keep the husband-petitioner in his house as “Gharjamai” to
which he refused and for that she was not at all ready to live at her
3.
matrimonial home. Besides, she was doing job of tailoring through which she
used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month, on the other hand he was a poor man,
not capable to maintain by meeting out the demand of the complainant for
herself and the children.
4. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court by his order dated
12.02.2009 passed in Maintenance Case No.30 of 2007 observed that the
petitioner-husband was convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code in Complaint Case No.119 of 2005 and he was adequately sentenced by
a detailed discussions. Learned Principal Judge observed that considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on the record
there were sufficient cause for the complainant to stay in her parental home
with her children. Learned Principal Judge explained that for obtaining
anticipatory bail the petitioner-husband entered into compromise and his
anticipatory bail was granted only on deposit of Rs.24,000/- to which the
complainant admitted having received the said amount. The learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh on appreciation of the evidence on record
adduced on behalf of the parties, by a detailed order, observed in the following
manner,
“However, taking into consideration of the fact that the
opposite-party himself has already given undertaking to pay
Rs.1,000/- per month at the time of hearing of his bail
application, it appears judicious that the opposite-party
should be asked to make some payments towards
maintenance allowance to the petitioner so that she may
maintain herself and her children properly. It appears that
undertaking by the opposite-party regarding payment of
Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner was given on 7.9.2005.
Considering the fact that after his passage of time, cost of
living and other expenses have been increased, it appears
that the opposite-party should be asked to pay Rs.1200/- per
month towards maintenance allowance to the petitioner to all
four petitioners @ Rs.300/- per month to each petitioner, in
view of fact of source of income to petitioner No.1 from
agricultural land mentioned above (from her parental
property).” Accordingly, the Principal Judge directed the
husband-petitioner Chhotu Modi to pay Rs.1200/- per month
to the petitioner No.1 @ Rs.300/- to each of the petitioners
from the date of filing of the case (proceeding) i.e. since
19.03.2007 with further direction to pay the arrears.”
5. I find that after service of notice upon the Opposite Party No.2 she
entered appearance by executing Vakalatnama in the Criminal Revision but
no counter-affidavit has been filed, nor any Counsel appeared on her behalf
when this Revision was finally heard and reserved for the orders.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find
that the order impugned recorded by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court is a reasoned order and the amount fixed for the maintenance of the
4.
complainant and her children is based upon the commitment of the petitioner-
husband, who had expressed his willingness to pay Rs.1,000/- which has
been enhanced to the tune of Rs.1200/- per month by the Principal Judge,
Family Court for the reasons recorded by him and the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner-husband failed to show any reasonable
ground so as to call for interference in the impugned order.
7. There being no merit, this Criminal Revision is dismissed.
[D.K.Sinha,J.]
P.K.S./N.A.F.R.