Criminal revision petition challenging the impugned order dismissed as the order does not call for revisional jurisdiction – Jharkhand high court
A criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed under section 125 CRPC and directed the petitioner to give maintenance to opposite parties the petition was heard and dismissed by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY in the case of Kaleshwar Rabani versus The State of Jharkhand and Ors Cr. Rev. No. 641 of 2014.
The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is fit to be set aside as the order of maintenance was decided based on petitioner conviction under section 498A of the Indian penal code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and an appeal is also pending against the matter of conviction and during the pendency of present petition the said appeal against the judgment of conviction is set aside by the appellate court as marriage in the matter could not be proved. the marriage could not be proved in the criminal case the impugned order based out on the matter of conviction is also fit to be set aside.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the impugned order was passed not only on considering the conviction of the petitioner in the criminal case for the offenses under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but also the evidence the opposite party in her cross-examination in which the fact was made clear that she was forcefully married to the petitioner and she denied the marriage. this shows that the marriage was performed by force. the counsel also submitted that merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, the same will not amount to erasing the other materials on record regarding the marriage between the parties. The counsel submits that the impugned order is neither illegal, nor perverse, nor suffers from any material irregularity calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
The court hearing both sides is of the view that the marital status between the petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2, which is not found valid in a criminal case, has no concern in the present matter as the dispute regarding marital status and there is enough evidence which shows the prima-facie finding of marriage between the petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2 and there is sufficient material on record to maintain the impugned order of maintenance hence, the court does not find any illegality in the order and no need for revisional jurisdiction and the criminal revision petition in the matter is dismissed.
Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma