Sutapa Banerjee Vs. State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Bench: JUSTICE H.C. Mishra

SUTAPA BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. On 12 April 2012

Law Point:

Wife is not willing to live with her Husband without any reasonable cause. While Husband is always ready to keep Wife. No maintenance to Wife.

JUDGEMENT

1. Heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment dated 8.9.2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court. Deoghar, in Cri. Misc. Case No. 306 of 2008, whereby, the Court below in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C., has denied the maintenance to the petitioner-wife, but has allowed the maintenance of Rs. 500 per month in favour of a minor son, who is residing with her.

3. It appears from the impugned judgment that marriage between the parties is admitted. According to the case of the petitioner, her husband is a practising lawyer at Siwan and she has alleged cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and has stated that she was ousted from her matrimonial home when she was carrying pregnancy. She has also stated that her husband-opposite party No. 2 and his mother, left her in the house of grand maternal uncle at Deoghar where she is presently living, and she gave birth to a child.

4. It appears from the impugned order that the case of the opposite party No. 2 is the denial of any cruelty to the petitioner and he has also stated that he is always ready to keep his wife with proper care and full dignity and he even offered to live with the petitioner separately from her mother-in-law (her father-in-law is no more). It also appears that there was a conciliation proceeding in the Court below, in which, also the petitioner flatly refused to live with her husband and reconciliation proceeding failed.

5. It further appears that witnesses were examined by both the sides in the Court below and on the basis of the evidence brought on record, the Court below has come to the conclusion that it was the petitioner who was not ready to live with her husband and, accordingly, denied the compensation to the petitioner. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the witnesses examined by the petitioner herself had admitted that the petitioner had come to Deoghar for appearing in an examination and thereafter she never went back to her husband. The petitioner has also admitted in her cross-examination in the Court below that she has to look after her mother and maternal grand-mother. She has also stated that nobody will be there to look after her mother and maternal grand-mother, if she goes to Siwan. She has further stated that she came to Deoghar in the month of June, 2007 and she has made no complain against her husband-opposite party No. 2 with respect to her torture to any police officials or in the Court (at Siwan). Taking into consideration these materials on record, the Court below has come to conclusion that the petitioner herself admitted that she was not willing to live with her husband and to lead conjugal life with him, even though, her husband has expressed his willingness to keep and maintain his wife and he was also ready to give an undertaking through a bond. Accordingly, the Court below held that the petitioner was residing at Deoghar in the house of maternal grand uncle voluntarily, and she is not entitled to get maintenance from her husband.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been denied the maintenance illegally by the Court below, inasmuch as the petitioner had also filed a case under Section 498-A, IPC against her husband at Deoghar, but the Court below has not taken into consideration the fact that she was being not subjected to cruelty and torture, rather, she has also expressed danger to her life. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Court below that the petitioner is not willing to go with her husband voluntarily is against the material on record, and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

7. Learned APP for the State as also learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2. on the other hand, submitted that there are ample materials to show that the allegation of cruelty and torture against the petitioner was false, rather, the maternal uncle of the petitioner, who was examined as PW 1 has admitted that the petitioner has come to Deoghar for appearing in an examination and thereafter she did not return back and the petitioner herself had given in detail as to why she is not willing to go to Siwan for looking after her mother and maternal grand-mother. Learned Counsel accordingly submitted that there is no illegality. In the impugned judgment worth interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.

8. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and upon going through the impugned judgment, I find that on the basis of the evidence brought on record, the Court below has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not willing to live with her husband without any reasonable cause and the Court below has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner herself in her cross-examination admitted that she was living at Deoghar for looking after her mother and maternal grand-mother. I find that the finding of the learned Court below is based on the evidence on record and the same cannot be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. I also find that the Court below has taken into consideration the fact that opposite party No. 2-husband is always ready to keep the petitioner even after entering into a bond and living separately from his mother. The Court below has also taken into consideration the conciliation proceeding in which also the petitioner clearly refused to live with her husband.

9. In facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the findings, given by the learned Court below that the petitioner is not living with her husband voluntarily, cannot be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

10. There is no merit in this revision petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

Revision dismissed.