IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.683 of 2024 ------

Arun Kumar Sahu @ Arun Kumar @ Arun Sahu, aged about 37 years, son of Narendra Sahu, resident of village Anand Nagar, Lowadih, P.O. and P.S.-Namkum, District-Ranchi.

… Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, and

2. Malti Devi W/o Arun Sahu, D/o Bhukhan Sahu, R/o Village-

Hurda, P.O. + P.S.-Bano, District-Simdega.

… Opposite Parties ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Vidhika Saboo, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sheyakur Rahman, Advocate ------

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 15.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No.113 of 2020 in which the learned Court has directed the present petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 as an interim maintenance on or before 15th day of each calendar month from the date of filing of original maintenance case i.e. 06.07.2020 despite the fact that the opposite party no.2 is not ready for restitution of conjugal rights with the petitioner in defiance to the order dated 17.01.2019 passed in Original Suit No.315 of 2018 of the said Family Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits by drawing attention of this Court to Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. that the same mandates that a wife shall not be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance and interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be from her husband, if she is living in adultery or without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband and if they are living separately with mutual consent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case where there is a specific direction by a competent Court of law for restitution of conjugal rights but even then, since in defiance of the same, the opposite party no.2 is refusing to live with her husband being the petitioner herein, so the same amounts to the petitioner, without any sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband, therefore, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality; by despite knowing such facts, still passing the order of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- for the opposite party no.2 and Rs.3,000/- for the maintenance of their son.

5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rina Kumar alias Rina Devi alias Reena vs.

Dinesh Kumar Mahto alias Dinesh Kumar Mahato & Another reported in (2025) 3 SCC 33, paragraph-30 of which reads as under:-

‘’30. Thus, the preponderance of judicial thought weighs in favour of upholding the wife's right to maintenance under Section 125CrPC and the mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband's behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC. It would depend on the facts of the individual case and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree. There can be no hard-and-fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the distinctive facts and circumstances obtaining in each particular case. In any event, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by a husband coupled with non-compliance therewith by the wife would not be determinative straightaway either of her right to maintenance or the applicability of the disqualification under Sec