IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1235 of 2014
Gyan Singh ….. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sapna Devi ….. Opposite Parties
With
Cr. Revision No. 669 of 2013
Gyan Singh ….. Petitioner
Versus
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
—–
JUDGEMENT

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
-2-

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
-3-

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
-4-

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
-5-

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

is Rs.3,36,000/-

12. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner in both

the cases and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2-wife and the

learned APP.

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.
-6-

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
-7-

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

disposed of.

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)
Pramanik/