Prabhat Ranjan And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Both parties have challenged the judgment dated 17.10.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No. 128 of 2005.

The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2016 has challenged the said judgment on the ground that the amount of maintenance of Rs. 3000/-

each for his wife and minor daughter is excessive, whereas Criminal Revision No.57 of 2016 has been filed by his wife claiming that maintenance

should be awarded to her from the date of the application and not from the date of the order.

A glance at the judgment in M. Case No. 128 of 2005 reveals a chequred history of the case. The application filed by Shusma Dayal under section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was disposed of by an exparte order dated 15.01.2007. On 14.02.2008, her husbnd Prabhat Ranjan filed Misc.

Case No. 03 of 2008 for recall of the exparte order dated 15.01.2007 and it was allowed vide order dated 18.03.2008 with cost of Rs.5000/- and he

was directed to pay Rs.1000/- to his wife and Rs. 500/- to his minor daughter as interim maintenance. After the parties led evidence, by judgment

dated 21.03.2012 the maintenance case was dismissed. Against this order, Shusma Dayal came to this Court in Criminal Revision No. 360 of 2012. In

the proceeding of criminal revision, she filed a copy of the statement of her husband recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in

Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2005 in which he has admitted his second marriage and income. Finally, by an order dated 05.02.2015 Criminal Revision

No. 360 of 2012 was allowed; judgment dated 21.03.2012 in Maintenance Case No. 128 of 2005 was set-aside, and the matter was remanded back

for a fresh consideration.

The marriage of Prabhat Ranjan was solemnized with Shusma Dayal on 05.02.2005 at Hazaribagh. In her application under section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, Shusma Dayal has stated that at the time of the marriage demands of Rs.3 Lacs and other house-hold articles and

electronic gadgets were made and her father for fulfilling the demand of her husband withdrew Rs.3 Lacs from his bank account on 13.12.2004 and

gifted house-hold articles worth Rs. 2 Lacs. However, a further demand of Rs.5 Lacs and Hero Honda motorcycle was made. When those demands

were not fulfilled she was harassed and tortured by her husband and his family members. She has made various allegations of harassment and torture

to her. A case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was lodged vide Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2005. She has claimed that her husband

who is an Electrical Engineer is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. She has claimed Rs.8000/- per month for her maintenance and Rs. 2000/- per month

for her child.

Opposite party-Prabhat Ranjan has denied the aforesaid allegations.

Both parties have led oral evidence; Shusma Dayal has examined four witnesses and her husband-Prabhat Ranjan has also examined four

witnesses. The witnesses examined by Shusma Dayal have spoken about her husband earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, her ill-treatment at the hands of

her husband and the family members and demand of dowry. The witnesses examined by Prabhat Ranjan have stated that after his marriage when his

wife refused to live with him he became depressed and mentally sick. He was treated at Ranchi Mental Hospital and he was unemployed and,

therefore, not liable to pay maintenance to his wife and the minor daughter. Several documentary evidences, such as, order passed in A.B.A No. 685

of 2006, medical prescription from Bokaro General Hospital and RINPAS, Ranchi, Sanha Petition No. 347 of 2005 etc. were tendered in evidence.

On the basis of the materials laid before him, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag has ordered payment of Rs.3000/- each for his

wife and the minor daughter; the judgment runs into 23 pages.

The marriage between the parties is not denied and from the wedlock a minor daughter has been born is also admitted by them.

The documents produced by both the parties in the present proceeding would disclose that presently Prabhat Ranjan is working at Tenughat

Thermal Power Station. The dispute is with respect to his salary. There are at least two documents on record; one is of the year 2015 which reflects

his salary more than Rs.12,000/- and the other document which is of the year 2018 reflects that his salary is about 20,000/-.

Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person who has sufficient income is under a duty to maintain his wife and minor children.

The plea of mental illness set up by Prabhat Ranjan is inconsequential for the reason that at least since 2015 he is employed somewhere. His wife has

a reasonable excuse not to live in his company; she has filed a criminal case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It has also not been shown

that she has sufficient income to maintain herself and her minor daughter.

In the aforesaid facts, keeping in mind the limitations under the revisional jurisdiction [refer, “Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Biharâ€

reported in (1987) 1 SCC 288], I am not inclined to interfere in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2016 and, accordingly, it is dismissed.

On payment of maintenance to Shusma Dayal from the date of the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it needs to be

recorded that the delay caused in disposal of M. Case No. 128 of 2005 is not on account of delaying tactics or otherwise of Prabhat Ranjan. The

exparte order dated 15.01.2007 was recalled by an order dated 18.03.2008. Order IX Rule 13 CPC provides that in a case in which a decree is passed

exparte against a defendant he may apply to the court for setting-aside of the decree if he satisfies that summons was not duly served or that he was

prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the wife,

namely, Shusma Dayal that inspite of summons sent to his correct address Prabhat Ranjan did not appear in the proceeding of M. Case No. 128 of

2005 and while so, it was on account of his deliberate non-appearance a final decision in M. Case No.128 of 2005 was delayed, cannot be accepted in

face of the order dated 18.03.2008 by which the exparte order dated 15.01.2007 has been recalled by the court. Thereafter, the matter came to this

Court and by an order dated 05.02.2015 Criminal Revision No. 360 of 2012 was allowed and the matter was sent back to the court concerned for a

fresh consideration on merits.

The above being the factual position, it cannot be said that a final decision in M. Case No. 128 of 2005 was delayed due to some act of Prabhat

Ranjan and, therefore, award of maintenance from the date of the order is justified. Sub-section 2 to section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

provides that maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the

date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance. A bare reading of sub-section 2 would reveal that normal rule is that maintenance

shall be payable from the date of the order and it can be paid from the date of the application for the reasons to be recorded [refer, “Shail Kumari

Devi Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak†reported in (2008) 9 SCC 63]2. From the facts brought on record, I do not find any reason, particularly, delay

caused by Prabhat Ranjan for award of maintenance from the date of the application.

Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 57 of 2016 is dismissed.

The petitioner-Prabhat Ranjan in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2016 shall comply with the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,

Hazaribag and pay the arrears of maintenance, if any, within next three months.

I.A No. 3236 of 2016 in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2016 and I.A No. 8715 of 2019 in Criminal Revision No. 57 of 2016 stand disposed of.