JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON RAVI GORAI V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

RANCHI, India, Dec. 30 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 1:

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State and opposite party No.2.

2. I.A. No.7258 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 372 days in filing the Cr. Revision.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the delay has occurred as the petitioner was trying to compromise the matter, as such, the delay may kindly be condoned.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and opposite party No.2 have got no objection if the delay is condoned.

5. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the reasons assigned in the I.A., the delay of 372 days in filing the Cr. Revision is hereby condoned.

6. I.A. No.7258 of 2025 is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

7. This petition has been filed for setting aside the Judgment dated 18.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family CourtII, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.115 of 2021, whereby the application filed by the O.P. No.2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed by the learned Court and has been pleased to allow maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the O.P. No.2 till she alive or remarried and Rs.3,000/- per month to her daughter till her marriage or gainfully employed.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 was solemnized on 17.02.2016 at Sudamdih, Dhanbad according to Hindu Rites. He then submits that the learned court has allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- to the O.P. No.2 till she alive or remarried and Rs. Rs.3,000/- per month to her daughter till her marriage or gainfully employed.

9. He submits that the petitioner is trying to compromise the matter, however, the wife is not ready. He then submits that the learned court has allowed the maintenance, which is in higher side and in view of that also, the impugned order is not in accordance with law. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that the compromise has taken place, however, the petitioner has again driven out his wife from the matrimonial home and in view of that the compromise is not existing. He further submits that the petitioner has already filed a divorce suit being Original Suit Case No.652 of 2020, which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad. He further submits that if the petitioner is sincere about the compromise, he can take recourse in the said divorce case.

11. It is admitted position that the marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 was solemnized on 17.02.2016. The learned Court has considered the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 as well as exhibits. PW-1 who happened to be O.P. No.2 has stated before the learned Court that she was tortured physically and mentally by her in-laws and out of the wedlock, a daughter was also born and then she was driven out from the matrimonial home on 11.11.2020 demanding Rs.03 lakh dowry otherwise saying that she was not allowed to live in the matrimonial home. She has also stated that the petitioner happened to be an electrician and his monthly income is Rs.21,000/- and he also earns Rs.10,000/- out of letting house on rent. PW-2 and PW-3 have substantiated the version of PW-1. The husband was examined and other witnesses have also been examined on behalf of husband before the learned Court and he has stated about the quarrel between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 His version was silent on the point of income. In view of that the learned Court has considered the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner's earing is Rs.21,000/- per month.

12. In view of that, the learned Court has been pleased to allow the maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,000/- to his wife and Rs.3,000/- to his child respectively. There is no illegality in the impugned order and as such no interference is required.

13. In view of that this petition is dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.