IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1235 of 2014
Gyan Singh ….. Petitioner
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sapna Devi ….. Opposite Parties
Cr. Revision No. 669 of 2013
Gyan Singh ….. Petitioner
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sapna Devi ….. Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocate
CAV on: 31/01/2020, Pronounced on: 28/02/2020
Since both these applications are connected to each
other, as such, the same were heard together and disposed of by
this common judgment.
2. Cr. Revision No.1235 of 2014 has been preferred by
the petitioner-husband challenging the judgment dated
21.11.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in
Cr. Appeal No.27 of 2014, whereby the appeal preferred by the
petitioner along with the co-convicts was partly allowed.
3. The learned trial court in C.P. Case No.89/2006
corresponding to T.R. No.567/2014, convicted the petitioner
along with the co-accused for the offence committed under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them for
the aforesaid charges.
4. The learned appellate court while sustaining the
conviction of the petitioner whereby he was directed to undergo
RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under
Section 498A IPC has been sustained, whereas the other co-
convicts were acquitted from their charges.
5. Cr. Revision No.669 of 2013 has been preferred by the
petitioner-husband challenging the judgment dated 10.04.2013,
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in
M.P Case No.85 of 2007, whereby the application filed by the
opposite party-wife under Section 125 Cr. P.C was allowed and
the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as
maintenance to the O.P-wife.
6. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appears for
the petitioner in both these applications. He submits that the
impugned judgments are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He
contended that when the petitioner went to the house of O.P.
No.2 for making vidai, he was badly beaten and attacked by the
parents/relatives of O.P. No.2, for which Bokaro Steel City P.S.
Case No.129/2008 was lodged by the petitioner.
7. He further submits that the opposite party No.2 is
residing separately at her own free will and as such she is not
entitled for any maintenance. It is only due to the act of the O.P-
wife, the petitioner developed mental illness and was forced to
leave job and at present he is suffering from mental illness. In
support of this ground of mental illness he annexed 3 medical
prescription dated 27.12.2010, 02.10.2012 and 28.01.2013.
8. Relying upon these prescriptions/report of the Doctor he
submits that he is unable to pay maintenance to his wife and he
himself is being maintained by his family members. He further
submits that even the learned Family Court in its order has
observed that the wife is residing separately at her own free will
as such in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Damodar Thapa reported in 2013 Vol-2 East India Criminal
Case JH page 543, O.P. No.2-wife is not entitled for any
maintenance and the learned Family Court has committed a
gross error in not appreciating these facts. He further submits
that even in the criminal case wherein the conviction of the
petitioner has been sustained is not sustainable in the eyes of
law for the simple reason that on the same set of allegations the
other co-convicts were acquitted and only the conviction of the
petitioner has been sustained.
9. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions the learned
senior counsel contended that both the revision applications
deserves to be allowed.
10. Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2-wife
strenuously opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits
that the opposite party-wife is residing separately due to demand
of dowry and torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry,
for which the instant complaint petition was lodged in which the
petitioner was convicted and the conviction of the petitioner has
been upheld by the learned appellate court and the same has
been challenged by the petitioner in Cr. Revision No.1235 of
2014. From the evidences, it clearly transpire that the O.P. No.2
has been subjected to demand and torture at the house of
petitioner-husband due to which she was compelled to reside
separately. It is not the case that the opposite party-wife on her
own will has left the house of the husband, rather it was the
continuous torture for the demand of dowry she was forced to
leave in-laws place and for the same reason criminal case was
lodged by her, upon which the conviction was upheld up till
appellate court. As such, the judgment cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the instant case.
He further submits that as a matter of fact, initially the petitioner
has lodged a false case being Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.129
of 2008 in which the brother and father of O.P. No.2-wife have
faced the trial and honourably acquitted by the learned trial
court and for the same occurrence, the O.P. No.2 lodged an FIR
which was registered as Bokaro Steel City Case No.28/2008
against the petitioner and family members, for which the learned
trial court convicted them.
11. Relying upon the aforesaid facts and submissions he
contended that all the acts of the petitioner was to deny the
maintenance to his wife. He further contended that the petitioner
has tried to mislead this Court by referring the order sheet of
M.T.S. Case No.85/2007, whereby it has been alleged that the
Family Court has observed that wife is residing separately on her
own will. As a matter of fact, the learned Family Court in its order
has referred the affidavit filed by the petitioner himself and the
same was not the observations, rather it was the reference of the
affidavit of the petitioner. It is only due to non-payment of
maintenance, the petitioner is trying to mislead to this Court by
filing Medical prescription of the Doctor. He further submits that
the petitioner is earning from running a School, whereas the O.P.
No.2 has no income and she is on the verge of starvation. He
concluded his argument by submitting that no error has been
committed by the learned Family Court in awarding the
maintenance to the wife but unfortunately not even single penny
has been paid and the total outstanding amount of maintenance
12. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner in both
the cases and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2-wife and the
13. In Cr. Revision No.669 of 2014, even assuming and
accepting the entire contention of the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner that petitioner has been suffering from mental
decease but admittedly he is not hospitalized. Further, when he
is being regularly getting medical treatment with the aid of his
family members, then in my considered opinion even his wife is
entitled for maintenance. The learned Family Court in its order
dated 10.04.2013 has dealt the issue of mental illness in detail
and come to the conclusion that the O.P. No.2-wife is entitled for
maintenance. As a matter of fact the learned Family Court in
the backdrop of all those facts, awarded only Rs.2000/- as
maintenance to be paid by the petitioner-husband to the O.P.
No.2-wife. Even otherwise, Section 18 sub section 1 of Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a Hindu wife shall be
entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time.
There is catena of judgments wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has
laid down the law that the husband cannot absolve himself from
his duty to maintain her wife even if he is a beggar.
14. In this view of the matter and the settled proposition
of law the learned Family Court has rightly awarded the
maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner
to O.P. No.2-wife. As a result thereof, Cr. Revision No.669 of 2013
is, hereby, dismissed.
15. So far as the Criminal Revision No.1235 of 2014 is
concerned keeping in view the limited scope of revision
jurisdiction I refrain myself from reappreciating the evidences
and findings given by the learned trial court and upheld by the
learned appellate court, as such, the judgment of conviction
passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned
appellate court is hereby, confirmed.
16. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is
apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2006 and
14 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the
rigors of litigation for the last 14 years. It is not stated that the
petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail.
17. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that
no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the accused
person back to prison rather interest of justice would be sufficed
if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.
18. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is,
hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to
undergo for the period already undergone subject to the payment
of fine of Rs.20,000/-.
19. It is made clear that the petitioners shall deposit the
aforesaid fine of Rs.20,000/- within a period of 2 months from
today before the learned trial court, which shall be paid to the
O.p. No.2-wife as compensation.
20. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence, Cr. Revision No.1235 of 2014 is
21. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of
his bail bonds in Cr. Revision No.1235 of 2014, subject to
fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
22. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the
court below forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J)